Not if they both die at the same time. Oswald was able to shoot Connelly and Kennedy with one bullet.
They just have to line up better for better results.

And then some

I was going to post a long diatribe to sheldon, but decided against it.

You cannot reason or even converse honestly with people like this. I won't waste my bandwidth.

I *am* one of the groups the President has spoken negatively about, so I guess I can comment. I pray for his safety and hope he fulfills each and every promise that he made. I hope he makes my country even greater than it ever was before. Trump has the opportunity to become one of the greatest Presidents in history, if he can truly deliver what he promised.

Moreover, I hope every one of those violent protesters is rounded up and prosecuted fully. I am sick and tired of violence and mayhem being presented as free speech. It is not. That is felony after felony after felony. And it has been excused and pandered to more than long enough.
I have no quarrel with people holding signs, chanting and marching. That is their right. But no one.... NO ONE... has the right to damage private (or public) property, loot, burn or assault people. And if they think so, perhaps it is time they had a taste of their own medicine. I have free speech too, you know. And if violence is okay for them, it should be just ducky for me.

Woe be unto the first leftist rioter who crosses my path.

Spare me the outrage...I'm immune.

The media (as diffuse as that is these days in the internet age) and the political and culture-making class have a measure of responsibility for these outbreaks, and that very much includes Mr Trump.

The tenor of political discourse in America has become more infused with violence and rebellion than it has for a very long time. Politicians have been lobbing social grenades with gay abandon and which have been received and multiplied by an enthusiastic and nihilistic propaganda industry.

Is anybody truly surprised by any of this? Other than Trump actually winning, of course. But the response to his victory? When Obama won his first election, republican politicians stood up in public and said we will oppose everything this president does. They didn't say they would watch him like a hawk and hold his feet to the fire, like a strong opposition - they said they will oppose everything he tries to do. In doing that, they weakened the electoral compact - they gave permission to the American body politic to deny the validity of the electoral mandate.

Coupled with the idiosyncrasies of the American electoral college system, in which someone can win the popular vote but lose the election, that permission is a dangerous thing.

In the meanwhile the level of civil violence has been growing in response to tensions between police and citizenry in some areas - providing a new (or old depending on your perspective) and very visible template for revolt.

Of course the republicans didn't rebel against the political system out of the clear blue - there was a journey to that point. But they certainly bear a large share of responsibility for creating the context for current tensions.

I should say btw, that I do not mean that as an attack on the American political system - the political trends of Britain and much of Europe are very similar.

During the run up to the Brexit vote we had our first political assassination in generations. And attacks on certain minorities have increased massively since about the mid-point of the campaign and through the vote and aftermath.

President Trump loves you Sheldon, almost as much as George XLIII did...not quite as much; but, almost...and you survived that.

This.

I agree with the left Trump is a terrible person who should never be where he is. I'd feel much the same about Hillary. She would give us more of the same screwing we've had. Trump will give us worse and harder. They continue the pattern of breaking the people into little groups to keep them at each others throats. Trump will disrupt some things hopefully some of the right things but don't delude yourselves into thinking you voted for change. We tried to believe in Obama that way, but we continue the wars, we prop up the banks, we serve up our school children as profit centers, we get screwed by our healthcare system. Hillary wouldn't have changed any of that. She would have reduced expectations and ground away the way we were. This will be more blatant, a more joyful screwing of working people but they're going to cheer for it under Trump because he is super comfortable with the process and owns his useful idiots.

Whatever he does, it will be described as horrifying failure.

By one half, as was everything Obama did by the other half. That's nothing new.

What's new is the number of people on his own side who are still reticent to be seen with him. The question is whether they will come around as time passes, or continue to shun him if not directly fight him. Honestly I expect extremely little will get done in the next four years, good or bad. We'll be in contrarian stasis until 2020.

If it is halves, I'm speaking of the one-half that convinced us with deep confidence that Trump had no chance of being elected.

You have to admit that it was a bit of an anomaly that he did win. It's not like he swept the popular vote.

I'm a hopeless optimist, so I still harbor this unshakeable belief that he's a socially liberal person and won't let bad shit happen. I mean, yeah, he didn't dance with Caitlyn Jenner, but he acted like he might, which has got to piss some people off. He's not going to replace Obamacare with universal healthcare, but he acted like he might. If all he ever does is act like he's going to do stuff, in both directions, then whatever. That's fine.

To me, the anomaly was that nobody expected it, because that was built into the bubbles. At 8pm EST, polls closing time, I think the NYT percent-chance-o-meter started at Hillary like 85%.

We can say that the bias was confirming what the polls said, or what the polls said was wrong due to bias, but watching that meter was watching bias overtaken by reality.

Part of my optimism is that, in his state of narcissism and needing to be liked, he looks out on the hatery and figures his best bet is to actually be effective in some direction. Like, maybe a single-payer-ish plan as a christmas present from big daddy will make all the hatery people happy.

Another part of my optimism is that Trump is something we must go through in order to get to some other side, the nature of which is currently unknown to us.

The bone is broken and it sets harder. The stem is challenged by the wind and it grows firmer. You know, that kind of shit.

'THEY' (those who got Trump in, I'm not talking voters here) better give the masses something to keep them quiet. Either that or a police state.

I think there's a lot of truth to that.

MUSICAL INTERLUDE:
 

An earworm in case you ever feel abandoned by The Donald.

It apears to me that Trumps team cares very little for how things WERE done. Thats an important distinction to note. They seem very unconcerned with doing the same way as its always been - in fact they are IMO intentionally NOT doing that as much as possible.
... Bingo! 90+% of these people freaking out and/or wailing in the streets most likely couldn't name one of them either.
Fuck you, Sheldon. Piss and bitch all you want. I'll do the same. Been hoping for a chance to interact with you again. Seems you disappeared from basefook. After all these years I thought we were able to bridge the gap and still be adults, discuss our differences and remain civil. Guess I was mistaken.

I'm not happy Trump was elected and I'm worried about what he'll do. That said, I'll wait for him to fuck up(in my opinion) before I complain.

I thought we already did that with Bush's re-election in 2004.

And you'll do it again after the Donald's successor ends his/her run and another lunatic protest vote wins out.

It's cyclical.

Its making me cynical.

I saw a funny video of an interviewer asking people why they were protesting. They had a hard time putting into words why they were so outraged. One guy blurted, he's got too much money!

I know they only showed the people that didn't know why they were there, but still.

The protest marches today? They all knew. And there were many, many, hundreds of thousands, all told.

http://commondreams.org/news/2017/01...-better-future

EDITED TO ADD : Some estimates are more than 2,500,000 all throughout.

Cyclically cynical, every four years. ;)

Is this going to be like The Logical Song?

Always optimistic Tony.
The reed in the wind is a useful metaphor.

Neil Peart tells it like this:

Rush, Snakes & Arrows, "The Way The Wind Blows"

And like this:

Quote:

Like a forest bows to winter Beneath the deep white silence I will quietly resist Like a flower in the desert That only blooms at night I will quietly resist

Rush, Snakes & Arrows, Faithless

To wit, NOAA should not entirely cook a data set to "erase" the "pause" in advance of the Paris climate talks, and then (ironically, for this thread) lose the most important data in it so that it can't be recreated.

But it appears this has happened.

Or not. The data are available, but they weren't archived using the process he designed. He may very well have valid complaints on inadequacies in the the data archiving process or its implementation, as that is his expertise (though for some unstated reason he repeatedly complains that ASCII tables on an FTP site aren't "digital" or "machine-readable"), but there's no evidence for his claims that the study was rushed or the data corrupted.

I can certainly sympathize with his frustration over producing an archiving regimen that isn't followed. I think that's a common issue on any large organization.

Yeah. All my important stuff is on either the C drive if I don't really care if anyone else sees it, or the R drive if my boss told me to put it on the network.

I don't use the official file maintenance system. It's a pain.

Maybe. Maybe not. According to The Real Truth Project:

:eyebrow:

Pay me 1.5 million/year, and I might be tempted to claim that the earth is flat if that's what my benefactors wanted to hear.

I know that the Earth is not flat.

I live at the bottom of a hill.

I hope there is a round two, it is illuminating!

This is science. It doesn't matter one iota who makes a claim, it only matters what is verifiable.

Only most of the time.

That hill is just a bubble - like what you see when you're frying up your morning pancakes. In the vast time and space of the universe, the earth is as flat as a frisbee flying into the dark hole of your dog's mouth. I have spoken. Can I have my 1.5 mil now? :D

Round 2 side one

https://judithcurry.com/2017/02/06/r...-climate-data/

This is the actual scientific debate going on, over the validity of this data set. It's pretty cool no matter what you care to believe.

Trump on civil forfeiture:
Not that there's much fight against civil forfeiture from most politicians...

I didn't disappear. I blocked you. You insulted my friends for their comments about their very real fears.
So fuck you as well and take that bridge and shove it in YOUR gap.

Thanks.

How's that going?

But that just gives me 26,700,000 fake left wing sites. ;)

NY Time, Newsweek, Forbes magazine, CNN, BBC, IEEE, NOAA, New England Journal of Medicine, Journal of Applied Physics, Deutsche Welle, American Chemical Society, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, American Society for Microbiology, American Statistical Association, The Oceanography Society, Woods Hole Research Center, and Scientific American magazine are all fake news.

An example: Anyone who called Trump a liar must be a liberal promoting fake news. Wacko right wing extremists have told us. So it must be true.

This world's greatest institutions are all promoting fake news. Or maybe Saddam did not have WMDs? Of course he did. Wacko right wing fanatics would not lie and kill 5000 American servicemen for no purpose. Wacko extremists have tepid integrity.

Yup, all left wing fake news sites controlled by Soros. http://cellar.org/2012/bwekk.gif

Hey there, Georgy boy
There's another Georgy deep inside
Bring out all the love you hide and, oh, what a change there'd be
The world would see a new Georgy boy

-The Seekers

The dude is 88 years old. Who they gonna blame when he croaks? ;)

They’ve already identified Bezos as the next scarey guy.

BEZOS!!!

*shakes fist at the sky*



Do it. It's fun.

Its called extremism. Keep throwing names on the wall until something sticks. The Don tried to do it with Birthing. It failed He tried immigrants. Then found massive support from low educated extremists who are threatened by those more productive immigrants

In the UK, Labour is using anti-semitism. That appears to be working for them.

The Labour/anti-Semitism story is an important one, but one you appear to have entirely misunderstood.

I'm seeing a pattern.

A vague statement without anything that provides perspective and without supporting facts, then it is a classic example of fake news. An honest statement always explains the what and whys. That soundbyte is classic emotion. Post in adult manner. Explain what that statement means and why it has credibility.

Using only emotions rather than facts to make a conclusion is why fake news exists. Since that conclusion is only one sentence, then it is obviously a lie. Explain a conclusion derived from facts; not fake news from emotions.

tw, you're full of bullshit.

Now prove my one sentence conclusion false by posting some sense.

You appear to require higher standards from me than you set for yourself.

Maybe you would be good enough to explain to us how Labour is "using" anti-Semitism and how that is "working for them" to provide some credibility.

So again posted is nothing to support an emotional opinion that is even contradicted by Tony Blair in a recent interview. It is called throwing shit at the wall to discover what sticks. Labour has got itself stuck into anti-Semitism since 2015, in part, because Corbyn is a power broker - not a leader.

A guide to Labour Party anti-Semitism claims

Some of this was cited elsewhere including the Brexit thread.

An adult reply, as requested, would have included at least one fact to justify that one sentence emotion. Still not posted, apparently, because you were told what to think. And did not bother to first learn facts.

You could prove me wrong by finally posting a fact. I don't expect it. I expect to read more insults and naysay replies.

Corbyn, who actually favors Brexit, is simply playing power games at the expense of the British economy. Britain has a serious leadership problem. Anti-Semitism is simply more morass that Corbyn has gotten Labour sucked into.

The anti-semitism thing in the Labour party is a complex issue. It's been bubbling for some time.

IMO this is not Corbyn using the anti-semitism accusations for his own purposes, it is the opposing wing of the party using anti-semitism as a way to undermine and diminish him and his wing within the party.

They have tried everything. From the first notions of him running for leader and realised he might have popular appeal they set out to oppose him - and from the moment he won the leadership they tried to undermine him.

There is and has been for many years an internal war in the party between what could be described as left-v-right, or traditionalist-v modernising tendencies- though it doesn't break down quite as simply as that. There are in most branches two distinct factions. This is mirrored at the highest level - and both sides engage in a combination of very localised disputes (which faction controls the vote on this or that local issue) and national positions and policies - they connect up and down the chain, with regional organisers calling in their faction members on tnis or that campaign issue, andd local leaders calling in their faction to attend meetings when their votes are needed, to dirty tricks on the council party group, and leaks to the press to ensure their people get the right committee seats - and on up to the district, the national committee, the parliamentary party and the shadow cabinet.

I was a participant in that war at multiple levels for a good few years. I know how the party works.

Yes there will have been incidents of anti-semitism - it's gonna happen in a large enough organisation. And there may also have been people for whom anger at Israel's actions in Palestine have drifted into a more general disdain for Israel as a country and an assumption of every Jewish person they meet that they they are somehow connected to the issue.

But there is also a tendency for anybody who criticises Israel to be labelled an anti-semite - and there is also a tendency for those who oppose Israel's stance and sympathise with the Palestinians to concentrate on the left, while there is a similar tendency for those who are more supportive of Israel to concentrate on the right (of the party - not of the political spectrum). Again, this is not universally so - it is only a tendency; however it does mean, I think that the same people calling any critic of Israel an anti-semite also tend to be among those who hate Corbyn and his wing of the party

I believe a relatively small problem of slightly increased incidents of genuine anti-semitism (as mirrored in the country at large) has been grasped by a bunch of political opportunists who have tried every other way to upset Corbyn's grasp on the party and failed - this is the thing that looked like it might stick. At the point it was all starting to die back and give way to other matters they leapt on it again.

They would rather shatter the party into a thousand pieces than let the left lead it.

The left can be just as vicious and inward looking, with plots and pub room strategy meetings - in my experience though - the attempts to destroy a right wing leader of the party tend to get put to the side during campaigning and if that leader is the one taking us into an election. I have never known the right not try to sabotage a left wing leader regardless of the political landscape they are in.

That is what the anti-semitism row is about in my opinion.

What did the definition say before they put the asterisk on it?

“Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

If you can't adopt that very simple statement, while still finding plenty of room to criticize Israel, I have one word.





Really?

You can easily adopt the statement, while finding room to criticize Israel. But someone who wants to say that all criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic (I remember long ago Radar made that exact claim) can also use that statement. It's a pretty vague statement; it doesn't say what the "certain perception" is or what, other than hatred, it may be expressed as.

The first accompanying example says that manifestations (ie, rhetorical manifestations from the definition sentence) might target the state of Israel.

It does provide a caveat, that "criticism of Israel similar to that leveled against any other country cannot be regarded as anti-Semitic", so the issue is in how you parse that. Is it a problem to criticize Israel for doing something unless you first find another country doing the same thing and criticize them simultaneously?

I would say no, and have no problem with providing an asterisk to make that clear, especially if you anticipate that a significant number of people would say yes.

However, I am basing that solely on the words in the definition and examples. I have no exposure to Corbyn and make no claims on what his motivations are, though I'll tend to trust DanaC over tw on the issue.

The party didn't object to the definition itself but the specific wording and examples used to underpin and explain it - in particular the one HM references above

Some argue that people who object to 'zionism' are anti semitic

There are plenty of Jewish people who object to the definition and its examples as an attack on free expression and strangling of debate over the situation in Palestine

At one point corbyn attended an event hosted by a group of leftwing Jews who were opposed to political zionism and the centrality of the faith within the Israeli body politic - for which he faced further accusations of anti semitism

Is it a problem that enormous one-sided attention is paid to Israel by Europe when actual genocides are happening elsewhere and nobody bats an eye? Why do you figure they do that? It's problematic.

The Brits are in the same boat we are, forgetting Israel is an ally, not a friend.

That statement so accurately demonstrates the 'morass'.

DanaC's 'zionist' example further exemplifies this problem, in part, because so many want soundbyte answers. 'Zionism' now must be followed by many paragraphs delineating which 'zionism' word is being used. The actual word or a perversion now promoted by extremists?

Extremists so pervert so many words that NYC did not want the word Freedom on their new WTC building. The word 'Freedom' has been perverted like the expression "French Fries" once was (because France so accurately identified George Jr as lying about Saddam's WMDs).

Remember, it was never about liberals verses conservatives. It has been about extremists verses moderates. Extremist conservatives blame (invent) extremists liberals so as to not admit to the existence of their real enemy: honest people - moderates.

Extremists who want to "wreck shit" will even subvert the meaning of what was once an obvious word - zionism. And so we now have anti-semitism promoted everywhere - even where it normally would not exist. And worse. Even condoned in Charlottesville NC by a racist American president.

Corbyn's lack of leadership (a desire for power instead of leadership) explains this 'morass' that the Labour party now finds itself.