President-elect Trump
....
no, I just can't do it.
I tried, I'm trying. . .
We'll see.
The Donald would like to thank all the people who didn't vote for collectively making this win possible.
Especially the ones who also put the GOP on track for a Senate majority with a Pennsylvania win.
Now they have NO excuses left.
I am thrilled! I just got in from an election party despite having to work in the morning. What an historic election! What a turnout! It's truly amazing. This must be what it was like in 1980 when Reagan was elected President.
President Trump.... I love the sound of it!
We Trumpeteers weren't about to let those Brexiteers upstage us in shocking the world.
Congratulations. I feel like this kind of thing was inevitable. Rural whites were being left out of the decision making. My only concern is that this doesn't turn into a big roll back of civil rights instead of an adjustment in economic policy.
This will be interesting.
Which Trump will show up to be President? How many campaign promises will he keep? Will Washington cooperate with him or fight him? Lots of unknowns right now.
Strange days, indeed. Hillary about to give her concession speech.
I give him six days from inauguration to put his in his mouth.
Who am I kidding? He won't make it through his Inaugural Address.
We do live in interesting times
Bernie explains it in 1992...
[YOUTUBE]Vabeos-F8Kk[/YOUTUBE]
Now they have NO excuses left.
I am thrilled! I just got in from an election party despite having to work in the morning. What an historic election! What a turnout! It's truly amazing. This must be what it was like in 1980 when Reagan was elected President.
President Trump.... I love the sound of it!
Very, very similar.
Also I believe
I called this election way back when.
Barring any catastrophic event or sudden untimely death of any candidate, I call Trump as the next POTUS.
If you don't see why this is practically a fait accompli then you have insulated yourself from mainstream America.
Yep. I remember that. You did call this all along.
Me too, me too! Except I put it in terms of whose fault it was. (Everybody.)
http://cellar.org/showthread.php?p=966216So, it's 3foots fault. Be careful what you wish for because you reap what you sow. :lol2:
To be fair, it's the Gary Johnson voters that handed this to Trump.
For what it's worth, the electoral college places the REAL, truly official vote on December 19th. A revolt won't happen, but if it makes anyone feel better to hold out hope...
Yeah, not much hope for the Electoral College to revolt. Gore won the popular vote too.
Plus, if there are any upsets, it will be the two Washington State electors who said they won't vote for Clinton even if she wins their state (which she did).
The pendulum has swung back the other way. Nothing more, nothing less.
We'll see if its for four or eight years over time.
Have you reckoned with the possibility that it will be more than 8? And if that's not realistic in your estimation, is it because he wouldn't dare, or the system is strong enough to refute him?
His
potential Attorney General, Rudy Giuliani, attempted to get a "
2-3 month extension" on his final term as Mayor of NYC, after first proposing the repeal of term limits altogether, stating that it was his "obligation" to do so in the aftermath of 9-11.
Some apparently do not realize the scope of this change.
Both houses and the president are now controlled by an extremist wing of the Republican party. This time by people whose power comes from insulting others; and without even basic economic or military comprehension. With knowledge based only in rhetoric. Many benchmark Republicans (ie George Wills, Paul Ryan) have resigned from this party, have been marginalized, or are under direct attack for not endorsing extremist rhetoric. Similarities to 1930 Germany are scary.
Supreme Court will have three justices replaced by extremists. All branches of government will not just be controlled - will be dominated by people who are popular because they are bullies. Again, similarities to 1930 Germany.
Laws that resulted in a massive economic meltdown will be restored. Other laws and regulations that have slowly improved the American economy, that protected consumers, that averted a great depression, and that obstructed monopolies will be rescinded. Any hope at averting environmental disasters and encouraging innovation will be quashed in the name of profits and centralized power.
A Democratic party is now completely toothless. And has no hope of recovery for at least 10 years - barring some major military or economic disaster. If history is any judge, even longer. In part because Democrats do not have a brainwashing machine (Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Fox News, Drudge Report, etc) that even took a Republican party away from its benchmark and moderate leaders.
Massive destruction to the economy, open trade, a united stand again China's Nine Dash Line, protection of the Baltics, international prosecution of major world criminals, increased respect from allies, human rights, innovation to prevent environmental disasters, a united front against Putin, preventing nuclear proliferation, and averting an impending disaster centered around S Korea - just some of the ongoing solutions that we know (from history and comments) will terminate - partly or fully. Even Republican moderates can no longer keep their party extremists in line.
You thought George Jr was an anomaly? He at least had a Democratic party to keep him somewhat honest. A new and unrestricted power structure exists With people who even said we want to subvert government. And who may change their tune now that their power is almost unlimited. They will control all three branches of government with healthy margins.
How it plays out will be interesting - and may take major warfare or economic depression to finally restore sanity.
The difference - we did not see what was coming with George Jr's administration. We know (from history and promises) what can happen with no other power to regulate or temper those unrestrained changes. I cannot think back to an America where so much power was concentrated in but one group with an extremist agenda. Americans have not seen this before.
[Kruge] Yes, exhilarating, isn't it? [/Kruge]
Meh. Y'all are a lil bent it seems. That will surely make things better.
Lets chill and see what happens.
Tommy Notone
Both houses and the president are now controlled by an extremist wing of the Republican party.
You mean that guy that was a Democrat till last year?
Trump has no ideology, but he got to where he is by using the Republican Party, which was already being taken over by the extremists (Boehner was ousted for being too liberal). The extremists are his power base in Congress, and some of the remaining relative moderates are now on his enemies list for denouncing him.
I wouldn't put it past him to drop them without a second thought if they were no longer useful, but I think they will continue to be useful to him. And why wouldn't he sign whatever they give him, if it keeps them on his side?
Trump has no ideology, but he got to where he is by using the Republican Party, which was already being taken over by the extremists (Boehner was ousted for being too liberal).
Which also makes it interesting. Especially when Trump has a long history of screwing his counterparties.
When is a trump card also a wild card?
More potential appointments: (rumors from Trump transition team vetting process)
Other possible picks are similar to Christie: major public backers of Trump are being considered for a variety of cabinet positions, some of which manage scientific research or policy. Physician and politician Ben Carson, for example, is being considered for a variety of positions, including Health and Human Services. So is Newt Gingrich. Sarah Palin is a possibility for a number of positions as well, among them the head of the Department of the Interior.
Interior manages the US' public lands, including its National Parks. As part of this task, it handles energy extraction done on these lands, both fossil fuel and renewable (it's been critical for managing the first offshore wind projects in the US). It also hosts the Fish and Wildlife Service, which enforces the Endangered Species Act. Obviously, Palin's "drill baby drill" mentality would mean a major change of direction for Interior, as would another possible choice: Forrest Lucas, founder of an oil company.
Trump's son, Donald Junior, is reportedly also interested in the job.
For the second time in 16 years the popular vote is discarded in favor of the electoral college vote.
Add Kris Kobach to the mix. The architect of the law allowing police to jail anyone who looks like an illegal immigrant if they aren't carrying proof of citizenship.
For the second time in 16 years the popular vote is discarded in favor of the electoral college vote.
The argument is that people in the gray areas should have extra voting power because of all the acres?
It's very much like the Game of Risk, isn't it? Some territories are worth more, some are easier to defend. You have to be strategic of what territories you want to concentrate on. Just having more armies won't get you to total world domination.
That's just a map that shows where the people live.
I wanted to see how much of a hit my 401K took when trump got elected, so I checked.
Turns out it went up 1.36 percent that day. If it did that every day for a year, I could retire next fall.
I wonder if Obama is going to give Clinton a presidential pardon before Trump is sworn in?
Wouldn't that be some shit. Kablooey
Since there isn't a particular crime, it would have to be a Nixon-style "whatever happened" pardon.
She would be pardoned for official misconduct, which has already been established, to preempt being charged with a crime.
So far her defense for sending sensitive information through nongovernment channels when it should have been classified (it subsequently was) and sent through government channels has been Other people did it too.
The prosecutors are going to use the If other people jumped off the Golden Gate bridge would you do it too? offense.
This has been an interesting week indeed! My wife and I consider ourselves independents, we have always cast a mixed ballot based on research of candidates and their policies and backgrounds. This year we voted with absentee mail in ballots which was great; my wife is 65 and needs no other reason, I claimed disability. For the first time in our lives we just voted a straight D ticket. Never done that but just decided that even if Hillary did not win it would help down the ballot and for our area-Houston and Harris County, TX it did. Quite a few Republicans lost in the local elections.
But we live in an extremely conservative part of the city, probably 90% Republican and leaning towards the Tea Party types. It's been interesting to sit back and observe and listen to what my neighbors say. And I kind of had a feeling this would happen based on what I heard. The funny thing is all the people where I live were clamoring for a Washington outsider yet they hated Jimmy Carter as President and he was an outsider who tried to shake up Washington. Could be interesting.
Not sure how this will all turn out. It's very easy to shout from the sidelines during a campaign but once Trump is in the driver's seat it will be a whole different thing. And one side of me wonders if he can make it for 4 years. He will find out really fast that you can't fire folks you don't like except maybe members of your cabinet. And you can't declare bankruptcy when financial issues go south. I really wonder if he will make it or will he just resign when he gets tired of it or maybe be impeached over something. Hard to predict but he really only cares about himself so he is likely to self destruct. That would put Pence in the driver's seat and I'm not sure if I like him less than Trump!
My own family is kind of like the voters of this nation. I have 5 kids. The older 2 sons are both conservative. One is a born again hard core evangelical. He and his wife even stopped at the Creation Museum in Kentucky at the end of their honeymoon! Second son is a big fan of Breitbart news and all the right wing talking heads. My next 2 kids are my daughters who are both very liberal. And my youngest son is a Reagan Republican who always votes party line. So I guess it sort of mirrors the country right now, leaning right to hard right.
I figure that I have lived through 8 years of Nixon, then Reagan and even 8 years of GW Bush. I think this will be the worst but the nation is a big ship and it won't sink easily.
Looking at the result from the UK, I'm completely baffled on how your system works Clinton gets more votes than Trump but loses the election because of the electoral colleges ?
I've tried to read how it works perhaps someone could explain in layman's terms the way the system works.
Does anyone think that Trump didn't think he would really win and now he's thinking WTF do I do now
Say you have a sport league and North plays against South in a best-of-five series for the championship.
Game one North with 55-3.
Game two South wins 20-17.
Game three South wins 30-24.
Game four North wins 33-0.
Game five South wins 22-19.
South wins the series, despite having been dramatically outscored, because it's the games that count; and the strategy is oriented around winning games and not just getting a lot of points.
And despite seeming anti-democratic, it is thought that one should not rule the entire country without having broad appeal. Just winning the cities, for example, is not enough; nor is it enough to broadly win just the East or something.
The original thinking behind the Electoral College was that geographic diversity was important. The Founding Fathers were not majoritarian, but rather they believed in placing special weight on diversity of this kind. The prevailing view was “if too many (geographically) diverse voices veto you, you can’t get elected, not even with a majority of the votes.”
Our Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of government provide a system of checks and balances for political power.
The Electoral College does much the same for the power of the popular vote.
Without it, the people in high density population areas could collectively control the Presidency even though their geographical area is diminutive (see post #32). That would not work so well for such a large and diverse country.
I saw it simplistically explained this way - The states elect the president, not the people. FTR - Trump won 32-18, I believe.
Vision of the future (
twitter link). The tweet is difficult to quote, but it includes quotes from both Trump and Bannon suggesting deliberately destroying the US government so it can be remade in their image. Trump, as a hypothetical, and Bannon as a deliberate goal.
Trump will put a stop to this shit.. unless he can find a way to profit from it.
1979 ... wonder about those numbers today.
The Washington Post reported the CIA briefed the Congressional security people back in September on the Russians fucking with the election.
The CIA shared its latest assessment with key senators in a closed-door briefing on Capitol Hill last week, in which agency officials cited a growing body of intelligence from multiple sources. Agency briefers told the senators it was now “quite clear” that electing Trump was Russia’s goal, according to the officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence matters.
The CIA presentation to senators about Russia’s intentions fell short of a formal U.S. assessment produced by all 17 intelligence agencies. A senior U.S. official said there were minor disagreements among intelligence officials about the agency’s assessment, in part because some questions remain unanswered.
What? 17 fucking intelligence agencies? Who are they? Have we ever heard of them? 17 agencies? :rolleyes:
NSA?
According to a 2008 study by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, private contractors make up 29% of the workforce in the U.S. intelligence community and account for 49% of their personnel budgets.[3]
Oh what a tangled web we weave...
You don't hear much about the PIA (Peripheral Intelligence Agency). The other agencies don't like to mention them; because, the PIA's only job is to spy on the other intelligence agencies to find their security weaknesses before foreign powers can find and exploit them. The PIA is headquartered Las Vegas and their budget is classified.
Do other agencies call PIA, pain in the ass? :lol:
Agency briefers told the senators it was now "quite clear" that electing Trump was Russia's goal
Shockingly, they went on to tell the senators that this is how this has always worked, in every election, ever; and that not only Russia, but every nation on earth has interests and tries to influence every election on their own behalf.
I'm particularly appalled that they used the actual words of Clinton's supporters to create the picture of her people not giving a flying fuck for white working class America.
That lends credence to the argument that Clinton supporters should be seen and not heard.
... much like their candidate.
... but every nation on earth has interests and tries to influence every election on their own behalf.
A major difference exists between influence and manipulate. Influence is overt. Manipulate is covert and corrupt.
What a load of bs that story of the Russians hacking/influencing our election is. There is no upside to Trump winning from the Russian perspective. Clinton was easily blackmailable if she wouldn't play ball. Trump is not.
Talk about fake news!
How do I imbed a youtube video? I can never get that to work!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QR-uBdeEVF8Here ya go ...
[YOUTUBE]QR-uBdeEVF8[/YOUTUBE]
The guy (and reince priebus and Conway elsewhere) on the right hit several of the points in the poster at the top of the Debating. / Arguing thread. His/their flaws of logic are painful to watch. Trump's team is very selective, deliberately and carefully choosing what evidence and sources they reference when responding to the questions from interviewers.
And I think this news item is a typical illustration of the disconnect in our shared experience of the reporting of things that are going on in the world. It's sadly clear that different sides the issues also bring different rules and standards to the conversation. Senator McCain evoked Senator Moynihan today saying "facts are stubborn things" when he expressed his support for an investigation of this issue.
What a load of bs that story of the Russians hacking/influencing our election is.
Extremist neo-cons say that when talk show hosts have told them how to think. Meanwhile professionals who do this stuff (ie Fort Meade) accurately say this is a great concern. Since extremists are so easily manipulated by such propaganda techniques. Since neo-cons do not know how to separate facts from emotional misinformation.
Same techniques also proved to most Americans that smoking cigarettes increase health. If most adults knew how to think for themselves, then those Russian antics would be irrelevant. But we know most adults are not officer material. Same type people were what Hitler called his brownshirts. So easily manipulated by misinformation, deception, context, and soundbytes.
We also know why Putin wanted Trump. Chess players easily manipulate and run circles around thin skinned, emotional, and not cerebral counter parties. He expects many good years running circles around the emotional, thin skinned, poorly educated, and Christie type bully Trump.
... We also know why Putin wanted Trump. ...
So he would have more opportunities to flirt with Melania. If Hillary had taken better care of herself, maybe got some plastic surgery even, we wouldn't be in this situation. But she let herself go, didn't she. :eyebrow:
Extremist neo-cons say...
Here's the problem, neo-conservatism is an ideology that started with conservative Democrats. The aggressive militarism espoused by them in foreign policy is not distinguishable from HRC's positions. Please update your scare words to match reality.
Here's the problem, neo-conservatism is an ideology that started with conservative Democrats.
Wacko extremist Democrats who then became wacko extremist Republican. Neo-con extremism existed long before that. Another legendary example was Sen Joseph McCarthy whose extremist lies destroyed so many lives. Completely different from moderates - Democrats or Republicans. Stop foolishly dumping all in one pot.
Moderates learn facts; then make a conclusion. Wacko extremists (neo-cons) have a conclusion based in emotion (or rhetoric); first learning facts be damned.
Only the naive would believe Russian hacking is mythical or not a concern. Especially when so many adults are so easily manipulated even by fictional news sites or Bill O'Reilly that intentionally creates such lies. Especially when so many adults knew smoking cigarettes increased health. Or loved it when we massacred 5000 American soldiers on what was clearly a lie about Saddam's WMDs. Extremist lies (like speeches that promote hate) are dangerous when left unexposed.
Unfortunately many adults are not officer material; are easily manipulated by outright lies. Rhetoric taught them to disparage and hate; to not bother learning how the world works. Extremists even deny that Russians hacked to promote a thin-skinned and knee-jerk president.
So many concerned that Trump may be cozy with Russia had absolutely no problem with Obama telling Putin he'll be more flexible after the election (wink wink/nudge nudge) Oh, and remember Obama making fun of Romney in the debate for calling Russia a geopolitical threat.
Yeh, you're a mental midgit. Your predictable thin-skinned, knee-jerk posts are irrelevant. You can STFU now. Your hypocrisy is nauseating.
The
Washington Post is reporting that scientists are unsure of a Trump presidency and beleive there is a decent chance he will remove climate data from government records. So there is now a coordinated effort underway to identify and prioritize all government hosted climate data and copy it and back it up to independent servers in other countries.
Maybe they are paranoid. Maybe they are wise.
Apparently a couple of days ago, Trump's transition team asked the Department of Energy for the names of everyone who has worked on climate change research in that agency, including private contractors. Why would they ask for that list of names? What possible motivation could they have?
Don't believe the press? T
his is the actual list of questions sent to the Department of Energy.
What are the names?
[ATTACH]58830[/ATTACH]
And what programs are important to Obama?
[ATTACH]58829[/ATTACH]
If the Washington Post makes a connection between not knowing why a question was asked of the Department of Energy, and a hysterical movement of a minority of scientists concerning data that is not developed or kept by the Department of Energy,
A) Is that news?
That's my only question. Because not knowing why a question was asked and drawing conclusions on that basis is not journalism. It's fucking conspiracy theory.
Hysterical? Conspiracy theory?
Only if you think that Trump and the people he appoints will be more restrained
than Canadians.
“Canada had some of the top climate change scientists in the world working, and they were stopped in their tracks,” as were leading ocean and fisheries researchers, he says. “The world as a whole is going to feel the consequences of that.”
Perhaps the most controversial feature of Harper’s administration was its reported “muzzling” of federal scientists.
For years, departments set strict rules over how and when scientists could discuss their research with the media, the public, and even other scientists. Journalists had to run interview requests through communication officers, often having to submit questions in advance. Environment Canada scientists required specific approval before speaking publicly on issues like climate change and polar bears, while researchers at the Natural Resources Canada needed pre-approval to give interviews on topics like “climate change” and “oil sands.” Scientists couldn’t travel to some conferences, or when they did were sometimes shadowed by media liaisons.
While Donald Trump was on the phone taking that congratulatory phone call from the president of Turkey, in that same call, Mr. Trump brought up to the president of Turkey by name that executive from the Doğan company, the guy who was the key guy on Trump’s big twin towers in Istanbul.”
Noting that Trump praised the man to Turkish President Erdoğan.
“On December 1st, the top representative of the Doğan company, in Turkey’s capital city, got arrested by the Turkish police. Again, Trump as president-elect had taken an official call from the Turkish president and used that occasion to tell the Turkish president how much this one particular company meant to him, going so far as to name specific executives.”
“I mean, the Trump family and the president-elect themselves, they stand to make millions of dollars from their relationship with the Doğan group in Turkey. That will stop if they get locked up,” she continued. “So they started locking them up. Nice leverage, right? It would be one thing if it was business leverage — but it’s leverage against all of us as Americans.”
linkIt doesn't matter what anyone thinks!!!
News is "things happened and we told you they happened." News is not "Things happened in another country and Trump did some things in an unrelated agency that we aren't sure about, therefore Trump is going to do the specific bad things that happened in another country."
That is not news. That is merely free-range bullshit.
Oh! Oh! I wanna play the "this is my only question" game.
Okay, okay, THIS IS MY ONLY QUESTION ( imagine I'm saying that in, like, a Batman voice )
Is it a responsibility of adult citizens, in a democracy, to exercise their critical thinking skills?
...
( And no fair changing the subject, because THIS IS MY ONLY QUESTION --so you have to respond specifically within the parameters that *I* want the conversation to be framed in !! )
Looks like a rhetorical question to me.
Wrong! You didn't answer my only question.
How do you feel about that?
Is it a responsibility of adult citizens, in a democracy, to exercise their critical thinking skills?
Yes
Now you answer mine. Use all your skills!
News is not "Things happened in another country and Trump did some things in an unrelated agency that we aren't sure about, therefore Trump is going to do the specific bad things that happened in another country."
That is not news. That is merely free-range bullshit.
UT is 100% on target here.
First off - a citizen is responsible for learning facts so as to make critical and informed decisions. We educated everyone to create informed (and therefore moderate) citizens. Who then first learn facts before concluding anything. Not everyone remembers their education. So we require everyone to be educated.
Second and unfortunately, too many are making "Trump will do this" conclusions. We know that Trump has a long history of doing what a "senior German government official" said. He has a set of "emotions and reflexes" rather than a foreign policy. Who can say what he will really do? He lied so often in his campaign that, for example, he now talks about Hilary in respectful tones. And has dismissed silly suggestions that Hilary should be jailed. He fully endorsed women's rights. When that did not get him political support, he quickly became an anti-abortionist. What does he really think? Nobody really knows. We only know he appears to have no long term thoughts. He is clearly not a chess player.
And that is the point. Nobody can really say what his every decision will be because he does not even admit to previous claims and accusations. His long history is to say anything that is convenient at the time. We have no idea what he will do.
Learn facts. Learn who he is hiring for his administration. Only that is news.
Does that say what he is going to do? That is not his history. He has a history (like other business school graduates such as George Jr) of not reading memos and National Security Briefings. Instead he states his current "emotion and reflex". What will he really do? Nobody here or anywhere in the world can say based in facts.
Is it a responsibility of adult citizens, in a democracy, to exercise their critical thinking skills? Yes
We are in for a wild ride on a roller coaster in the dark. Since Trump is a front man (much like George Jr). He does not know basic economic theory, foreign policy, National Security briefings, and what the generals know. His history is to not do homework.
We have no idea if the coaster will go screaming down a hole or just gently round a curve. Best anyone can do is only learn who the players will be. And then watch. We do not even yet know if the players will be permitted to make decisions.
Only useful news says who the players will be. Nothing more. UT is spot on correct.
All patriotic citizens spend time every day becoming informed. Lesser citizens do not. Are therefore easily manipulated by emotions. Where will Trump's emotions take him? Knee jerk reactions were successful at getting him rich at the expense of counter parties, no taxes, and other unproductive accomplishments. Will that strategy play well on the world stage? Be concerned. Nobody has a clue. We only know it will make this world more volatile.
Only useful news says who the players will be and their histories. Speculation is not news.
Yes it's news.
It reported the thing the scientists are doing, the reasons they give for doing it, and some relevant events. It remarked several times that the specific issue of data deletion hasn't been threatened, and is probably unlikely, but that a more pressing threat is preventing the collection of new data.
I'll agree that it's not a great article, since it didn't go too far into that threat, since there are any number of quotes they could have had from Republicans saying that the research under threat is a money-making scheme by scientists, and
claims from the Trump campaign that they intend to steer NASA away from "
politicized science".
they intend to steer NASA away from "politicized science".
That's excellent, I hope they are effective at it.
the full quote then
"We see Nasa in an exploration role, in deep space research," Walker told the Guardian. "Earth-centric science is better placed at other agencies where it is their prime mission.
"My guess is that it would be difficult to stop all ongoing Nasa programs but future programs should definitely be placed with other agencies. I believe that climate research is necessary but it has been heavily politicized, which has undermined a lot of the work that researchers have been doing. Mr Trump’s decisions will be based upon solid science, not politicized science."
Maybe it's let NASA do space, NOAA do atmosphere. NOAA's more AGW-oriented anyway, if that's how it goes down.
You start out saying that scientists working in fields under political attack by Republicans are hysterical, and then say you hope that the Republicans are effective in steering scientists away from science the Republicans politically attack.
No *a* scientist is hysterical, believing that federal data will suddenly become unavailable without warning or recourse.
*Published* Federal data, suddenly unavailable. It'll be erased from everyone's hard drive by the NSA.
Make a wager; I'll give you 10 to 1 odds up to $200. We'll give it a month, if any of the data is taken offline by Feb. 20....
Here's the thing man.
Most climate skeptics I know are not anti-science AT ALL. They are demanding, with full voice, the continuation of the study of climate.
The worst thing that could happen to climate skeptics would be if the data were to suddenly stop being collected on Jan 20th, 2017. I expect they feel that would be a wholesale disaster for them.
I'm not making any bets on what Trump will do in any regard.
But if I were in the situation where the ante for the bet was "make the backup", winning the bet was "I have the backup", and losing was "I didn't need the backup", I'd make the bet.
Most climate skeptics I know are not anti-science AT ALL. They are demanding, with full voice, the continuation of the study of climate.
The worst thing that could happen to climate skeptics would be if the data were to suddenly stop being collected on Jan 20th, 2017. I expect they feel that would be a wholesale disaster for them.
If their interest is in the science, sure.
But for the ones whose interest is in promoting fossil fuels, preventing environmental regulation, or for those who think that the science is a Chinese hoax or a liberal get-rich-quick scheme, it would not be a disaster.
But for the ones whose interest is in promoting fossil fuels, preventing environmental regulation, or for those who think that the science is a Chinese hoax or a liberal get-rich-quick scheme, it would not be a disaster.
It would be great for ALL of the stereotypes of the opposition!
Do you believe the end of the data would mean they win the argument? How would that work, exactly?
Wouldn't the argument just get bigger?
It most certainly would not end the argument, just the loss of valuable data we spent a fortune to document.
It would be great for ALL of the stereotypes of the opposition!
Just because a stereotype exists doesn't mean it doesn't apply to someone, and many elected officials and Trump nominees explicitly want to promote fossil fuel production, prevent environmental regulation, or have said that climate change is a scheme for scientists to get grant money. I've only heard Trump use the Chinese hoax line, and who knows what he actually thinks, except he certainly thought it would be a line that worked with his audience.
Do you believe the end of the data would mean they win the argument? How would that work, exactly?
Wouldn't the argument just get bigger?
Drawing out the argument even longer IS a win for those trying to stave off environmental regulations.
Ending the science is a win for those who think that climate scientists are perpetrating a hoax to get grant money.
OK well I do tire of this and am willing to admit your Kung Fu is stronger than mine, or whatever it was was just on display by us.
In any case, per Trump, the full court press of the press is now on to find the worst possible alarm bell to ring at all times. As if they didn't notice the bare result of the alarm bell of the last four months: his election.
~ could it be we might be able to think - you know, exercise our critical thinking skills - if they turned off the incessant and, in the end, useless alarm bell? ~
... In any case, per Trump, the full court press of the press is now on to find the worst possible alarm bell to ring at all times. As if they didn't notice the bare result of the alarm bell of the last four months: his election.
~ could it be we might be able to think - you know, exercise our critical thinking skills - if they turned off the incessant and, in the end, useless alarm bell? ~
Poor losers are incapable of critical thinking. Their thoughts can be safely dismissed.
I have little doubt that Trump is a terrible person and possibly a bad President, but roughly 1/4 of the potential electorate voted for him looking for, once again, hope and change. Hillary voters, again roughly only 1/4 of the electorate, need to realize that a push to disregard the election in favor of their chosen establishment candidate is in no way a valid outcome. If the electoral college decides that Trump is too nutty the Hillary electors have to get behind a consensus Republican who isn't establishment. Last I checked that person does not exist. /opinion from someone in the other 50%
Poor losers are incapable of critical thinking. Their thoughts can be safely dismissed.
They also call others names, like extremists and mental midgets... :evil2:
...
A) Is that news?
...
Is it a responsibility of adult citizens, in a democracy, to exercise their critical thinking skills?
Yes
Now you answer mine. Use all your skills!
Scanned the article, it appears to have two components.
1) First component: Definitely news, according to your definition.
News is "things happened and we told you they happened."
In this case, the "things" are that the scientist/s did/said things, and the actions/statements were reported as happening. That's news. (Was it relevant that the things happened? That's actually debatable. But they did happen.)
2) The second component (about the scientists' name request) actually also fits the "things happened and we told you they happened" criteria, however they seemed to have been tacked on to the second half of the first article without announcing the journalistic intention of why the two events are being suggested as being related events. This kind of article leaves to the readers imagination a correlation between the two events, which could understandably be characterized as journalistically irrsponsible (at best), and journalistically disingenuous/purposefully misleading (at worst). Conversely, the correlation between the two events being suggested could be considered relevant, under the "related recent events" umbrella, but even in this case, the lack of a new heading announcing what the correlation is suggested to be creates the appearance of impropriety (which even if not in itself a wrongdoing, must be understood by the speaker to be corrosive to the perception of integrity).
Taken as a whole, is it "news"? By the letter of the definition, it is a reporting of events that occurred. In this case, yes.
In the larger context of journalistic integrity, is it "news" that had been executed to the highest standards? I'm erring on the side of "it could have been done better" --and the central question is, is it better to announce a questionable correlation and directly attempt to mislead the reader, or NOT announce a questionable correlation, which could variously be described as 1) misleading the reader by sleight-of-hand, or 2) letting the reader exercise their own critical thinking skills (in which case, NOT announcing the questionable correlation would be necessary).
My personal opinion is that they should have explained the questionable correlation with a new sub-heading, in essence a new "subject" being announced. At best, in this case, it should have been a new article. If left as the part of the same article, the correlation should have been explicitly called out, and the article should have been published as an opinion piece. In this case, it would not be "news" --but since the correlation wasn't explicitly called out, I can't make that determination.
In this case, with the correlation left unstated, it doesn't technically qualify as an opinion piece. As a "news" article, with no correlation suggested, it appears to be two unrelated news articles crammed together with no explanation.
If it isn't the function of a journalist to leave unspecified correlations to the reader's imagination, then it isn't "news".
If it's okay for a journalist to present unrelated events as long as they DON'T specify the correlation, then it is "news".
So as far as I can tell, this comes down to definitions of journalism that I don't know exist as anything other than opinions.
My personal opinion, I would call this "bad" news, because I like correlations to be explained. It seems irresponsible (at best), in my opinion, to drop "hints" to the reader (unless you're calling it an opinion piece), and at worst a trend in "bad" news which waters down the concept of using discernment in digesting new information (if, which is debatable, this can even be considered the responsibility of a for-profit news industry).
...
...
...
* * * I DON'T HAVE A SHORT ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION, THAT'S WHY I DIDN'T IMMEDIATELY REPLY. * * *
Good thing that was UT's only question; otherwise, you'd have to quit your job to have time for answering more.
Coming back to the Cellar is hard. This is the second time UT has had an issue with me not replying soon enough. Am I in the penalty box, or are there now time limits on conversations?
Coming back to the Cellar is hard. This is the second time UT has had an issue with me not replying soon enough. Am I in the penalty box, or are there now time limits on conversations?
You are required to log in daily.
Bailiff, wack his pee-pee.
I had heard of these, and I just got one.
Anyone else getting ads on FB from Trump giving away tickets to his inauguration?
[ATTACH]59161[/ATTACH]
Apparently it stands for "58th Presidential Inaugural Committee 2017".
Without knowing that, it certainly seems like a scam, like an email from fhjklwhejklhsdl.zx claiming to be from your bank.
With knowing that, it's a nice way for them to get your contact info.
Why would they have chosen that picture? That has to be put together by someone not directly involved.
This sounds fun.
“Being a great president has to do with a lot of things, but one of them is being a great cheerleader for the country,” Trump said. “And we’re going to show the people as we build up our military, we’re going to display our military.
“That military may come marching down Pennsylvania Avenue. That military may be flying over New York City and Washington, D.C., for parades. I mean, we’re going to be showing our military,” he added.
Why would they have chosen that picture? That has to be put together by someone not directly involved.
It's actually a video where he says he's inviting me personally to the inauguration. (Not by name). I just grabbed a screen shot at random.
What is going on with Trump asking the Nat'l Guard general to resign while they are deployed for the inauguration? It just looks banana republicie.
So much weird shit. The Betsy DaVos pick is terrible. It's one thing to represent an ideology but she knows literally nothing about public education.
Yeah. Submitting those letters of resignation is one of those weird DC rituals every time a Pres is leaving. I don't remember it ever being handled this awkwardly before. I don't think it's malicious on Trump's part, just lacking in competence.
I skimmed an article in the Post a few days ago about it, and it was a little too boring for me to really get my mind into. My takeaway though was that the Trump team just didn't understand how things work and they are focused on other stuff.
So much weird shit. The Betsy DaVos pick is terrible. It's one thing to represent an ideology but she knows literally nothing about public education.
Yeah... super-awesome when she insisted that the states should be able to decide whether they follow federal disability law. Which she initially didn't even know existed. In response to a congresswoman who has a disabled son.
i understand there is enormous concern over who these secretaries are
being unable to name the current secys of all departments except state, i think i shall misplace my box of fucks again. the one where i keep all the fucks that i give
That's fine as long as you aren't nominated to run one of the departments you can't remember the name of.
i understand there is enormous concern over who these secretaries are
Currently interesting are some who literally contradict what Trump believes. That includes a proposed Sec of Defense and UN Ambassador. Both have accurately defined a major threat by Putin. Putin was successfully impeded by international economic sanctions promoted by Obama, created by US financial industry, and fully endorsed / supported by the rest of the world.
Trump even wants to end that - so as to enable / restart an invasion of Ukraine. Some of his proposed administration appointments have clearly stated that would be disastrous - openly disagreeing with Trump. Curious. Who's beliefs will win out?
Yeah... super-awesome when she insisted that the states should be able to decide whether they follow federal disability law. Which she initially didn't even know existed. In response to a congresswoman who has a disabled son.
Word.
Putting it simply, I hope Trump and Pence die soon and I don't care how.
And if you're not part of one or more of the groups that Trump has already spoken negatively about, shut the fuck up about what you think of my statement.
that's fucked up right there
The climate change page disappeared also.:(
That's the usual desire for arch-enemies... except super heroes, they just lock them away. Can't fuck up the sequels, you know.
Well just the eight more years.
You want him dead for that?
For many reasons. He's a proven serial liar, a traitor to this country, a sexual predator, homophobe, hate and fear-monger piece of shit.
Yes, I want him dead and I hope it hurts like hell when it happens.
Does that answer your question?
But he would be replaced by a worse option. :eyebrow:
But he would be replaced by a worse option. :eyebrow:
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.
For many reasons. He's a proven serial liar, a traitor to this country, a sexual predator, homophobe, hate and fear-monger piece of shit.
Yes, I want him dead and I hope it hurts like hell when it happens.
Does that answer your question?
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.
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.
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.
T
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.
'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.
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.
I think there's a lot of truth to that.
An earworm in case you ever feel abandoned by The Donald.
[YOUTUBE]Xn676-fLq7I[/YOUTUBE]
Trump team just didn't understand how things work and they are focused on other stuff.
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.
being unable to name the current secys of all departments except state, i think i shall misplace my box of fucks again.
... Bingo! 90+% of these people freaking out and/or wailing in the streets most likely couldn't name one of them either.
Putting it simply, I hope Trump and Pence die soon and I don't care how.
And if you're not part of one or more of the groups that Trump has already spoken negatively about, shut the fuck up about what you think of my statement.
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 think there's a lot of truth to that.
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.
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/2017/01/21/photos-womens-marches-all-seven-continents-demand-better-future
EDITED TO ADD : Some estimates are more than 2,500,000 all throughout.
Its making me cynical.
Cyclically cynical, every four years. ;)
Is this going to be like
The Logical Song?
The stem is challenged by the wind and it grows firmer.
Always optimistic Tony.
The reed in the wind is a useful metaphor.
Neil Peart tells it like this:
Like a solitary pine
On a bare wind-blasted shore
We can only grow the way the wind blows
Rush, Snakes & Arrows, "The Way The Wind Blows"
We can only grow the way the wind blows
On a bare and weathered shore
We can only bow to the here and now
In our elemental war
We can only grow the way the wind blows
We can only bow to the here and now
Or be broken down blow by blow
And like this:
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, Faithlessthey intend to steer NASA away from "politicized science".
That's excellent, I hope they are effective at it.
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.
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.
Maybe. Maybe not.
According to The Real Truth Project:
Judith Curry is co-founder and co-head of a consulting company reported to make ($1-5 million yearly), Climate Forecast Applications Network (CFAN) whose "innovative OmniCast(TM) suite of weather and climate forecast products for the energy sector incorporates the latest research in weather and climate dynamics...". OmniCast(TM) was "developed by CFAN in response to the needs of a major client in the petroleum industry for extended range, better-than-market weather forecasts to support energy trading, sales and marketing."
Omnipage(TM) is accessible from the "Solutions" tab on all or nearly all pages of the web site; it is the only thing there for which there is a PDF brochure (very nicely designed), and the only CFAN trademark that I saw; it also appears to have been introduced about the same time the company was founded, all of which suggests it is not a small part of their business. The quote above seems designed to catch the eye of potential clients in the petroleum industry.
: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.
Or not.
I hope there is a round two, it is illuminating!
Pay me 1.5 million/year, and I might be tempted to claim
This is science. It doesn't matter one iota who makes a claim, it only matters what is verifiable.
I know that the Earth is not flat.
I live at the bottom of a hill.
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/response-to-critiques-climate-scientists-versus-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:
Sheriff Harold Eavenson of Rockwall County, Tex., brought up the issue of civil asset forfeiture, which allows authorities to seize cash and property from people suspected, but in some cases never convicted or even charged, with a crime.
Eavenson told Trump of a “state senator in Texas that was talking about legislation to require conviction before we could receive that forfeiture money.”
“Can you believe that?” Trump interjected.
“And,” Eavenson went on, “I told him that the cartel would build a monument to him in Mexico if he could get that legislation passed.”
“Who's the state senator?” Trump asked. “Do you want to give his name? We'll destroy his career,” he joked, to laughter from the law enforcement officials in the room.
Eavenson did not share the senator's name.
Not that there's much fight against civil forfeiture from most politicians...
...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 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.
The Washington Post is reporting that scientists are unsure of a Trump presidency and beleive there is a decent chance he will remove climate data from government records.
How's that going?
But that just gives me 26,700,000 fake left wing sites. ;)
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:
An E.P.A. website once titled “Climate and Energy Resources for State, Local and Tribal Governments,” which included prominent links to programs like “Climate Showcase Communities,” now contains no mention of the term “climate change” and no prominent links to state and local climate information.
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.
Yup, all left wing fake news sites controlled by Soros.
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.
The dude is 88 years old. Who they gonna blame when he croaks? ;)
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.
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.
The Labour/anti-Semitism story is an important one, but one you appear to have entirely misunderstood.
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.
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.
You appear to require higher standards from me than you set for yourself.
In the UK, Labour is using anti-semitism. That appears to be working for them.
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.
You appear to require higher standards from me than you set for yourself.
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.
After a long-running row, Labour has adopted, in full, the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance's definition, and accompanying examples, of anti-Semitism.
It included an extra statement saying this should not undermine free speech on Israel. Jeremy Corbyn proposed a longer additional statement - which would have allowed criticism of the foundation of the state of Israel as racist - but this was not accepted by the party's ruling executive.
Critics have said the addition of a "caveat" undermines the international definition - but Labour says it is intended to reassure members that they can be critical of Israel without being anti-Semitic.
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 to criticize Israel for doing something unless you first find another country doing the same thing and criticize them simultaneously?
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.
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.
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?
Eyes are batted, sanctions are imposed, but that's beside the point. There were genocides happening in the world during apartheid South Africa, but I don't begrudge the people who pushed the boycotts against them.
The Brits are in the same boat we are, forgetting Israel is an ally, not a friend.
I think there's a divide in people's attitudes on this subject: do you hold your friends and allies to a higher standard than others, or do you let friends and allies slide? I think the fact that South Africa was a friend and ally fueled the opposition to apartheid in the West, while if they were some dictatorship mistreating their people as dictatorships do, it wouldn't have made as much news.
do you hold your friends and allies to a higher standard than others, or do you let friends and allies slide?
An American ally, called Pakistan, supported America's invasion of Afghanistan while at the same time protecting the Taliban and bin Laden. Where does one draw each line?
A closest America ally in Iraq are Kurds. And yet The Don would have let them be sacrificed to another American ally called Turkey. Turkey has been less friendly but is a closer ally? Enemy of my enemy is my friend? Does that make that first enemy also an ally?
Clearly answers based in soundbyte reasoning are the largest lies here. And why a leader who makes decisions based in pressure from extremist talk show hosts is an enemy of (threat to) America.
The US has bailed out on the Kurds more than once before. They know the drill. Allegiances are simply a matter of balancing the human equations. Leftist extremists with low emotional quotients are unable to process the variables. They don't know where the variables fit in the equations because they don't understand them. Then they're afraid of what they don't understand and lash out at it. Nothing new under the sun here.
Leftist extremists with low emotional quotients are unable to process the variables.
The wacko extremist would have us believe he knows what math is. Even Barbie knows that "math is hard".
Tw posts questions; then, insults responders if he doesn't agree with their answers. His childlike behavior invalidates any legitimate premise on which his questions could have been based and are best binned. This is tw uncovered, enemy of We The People.
Yes we -- that's you and me, tw -- do.
I wanna wreck anyone and everything in 'government' that isn't minimal and sensible and you, my sweet brother, wanna wreck any opposition to maximal and insensible governance.
Again, we're the same: two horrible people (on opposite sides of the room).
Yes we -- that's you and me, tw -- do.
I wanna wreck anyone and everything in 'government' that isn't minimal and sensible and you, my sweet brother, wanna wreck any opposition to maximal and insensible governance.
Again, we're the same: two horrible people (on opposite sides of the room).
Sensible is a vague term, but I like the way you think.
Smaller government, more freedom, less taxes, more independent citizens, and [edit] more individual responsibility.
That's what I'm dreaming of. Doesn't look like my dream is going to come true, but that's what it is.
"Smaller government, more freedom, less taxes, more independent citizens, and more individual responsibility."
yep
"That's what I'm dreaming of. Doesn't look like my dream is going to come true, but that's what it is."
Never know what tomorrow will bring.
...Never know what tomorrow will bring.
Someone knows. :)
Let me put it this way, grab your ankles.
"Someone knows."
Nope.
"Let me put it this way, grab your ankles."
Nah, I think I'll work real hard to make the commies do that.
...Nah, I think I'll work real hard to make the commies do that.
Yes. Me as well. Metaphorically of course.
We have sort of a... philosophical disagreement. Long running disagreement. Far reaching disagreement.
Keep me posted on your works.
Many people consider me a "game changer" for their cause. A benefactor of sorts.
Whew, sorry I'm late. Traffic.
Ok.
Well, Trump's going to prison anyway. What an asshole.
There. That should do it.
God,
Are you Crom?
#
THM,
Maybe he will, maybe he won't: doesn't matter...we'll find us another blunt instrument or we'll just stop playin' the game altogether and do sumthin' different.
Won't happen, the cost of jailing Trump and his secret service entourage would be astronomical.
Why is the Trump/Stormy Daniels get together always called an "affair?"
It was a one night (or less) paid-for sexual encounter, known as prostitution.
Why ... anything? :::deep sigh:::
It was a one night (or less) paid-for sexual encounter, known as prostitution.
Prostitution is paying for sex. Paying someone to remain silent after the fact is blackmail or hush money - also a form of bribery.
Prostitution is paying for sex. Paying someone to remain silent after the fact is blackmail or hush money - also a form of bribery.
Ecellent point. Completely correct, as usual.
In addition to the blackmail/hush money offense, Stormy had offered the sex story to "television shows, magazines and websites". Unconfirmed but written up in online news.
As the story goes, no one was interested in the story because Hitlary was going to gang STOMP Trump in the general election and the story wasn't seen as anything of value (?).
EXCLUSIVE: How Stormy Daniels tried to sell story about her one-night-stand with Donald Trump for $200,000 THREE weeks before the election but worked out a deal with Trump's lawyer Michael Cohen after she got no takers
So, regarding a story ( true or not ) that Stormy was peddling (allegedly), The Don paid for the story that no one wanted via a NDA to Stormy and others over similar but separate issues in the past.
From personal funds.
With SLAM DUNK crimes as this, it's no wonder that the Democrats are going out of their minds to boot Tru-, I mean, The Don.
What a (lucky :blush: ) asshole, criminal bastard.
Why is the Trump/Stormy Daniels get together always called an "affair?" It was a one night (or less) paid-for sexual encounter, known as prostitution.
I have an opinion on this but what do you think? Anyone?
In addition to the blackmail/hush money offense, Stormy had offered the sex story to "television shows, magazines and websites". Unconfirmed but written up in online news.
One must also ask about Stormy's lawyer. As a result of his filed papers, Stormy was ordered by courts to pay Trump's legal bills.