You lost me at: "last hurrah of the white Christian majority". It sounds very denigrating as if the needs of white or Christians should be ignored or that their choices are less important and their representation insulting because reasons. I don't understand the point in generalizing an entire race or religion like that. If there is specific items that are being proposed that are bad then deal with those specifics instead of looking at the immutable characteristics of the individuals that proposed those bad things.
Demographically, this is the last hurrah of blacks... What are you ethnically cleansing them by breeding them out of existence and replacing them with other races???? That is a disgusting thing to say and why you and others say it does not make sense to me. But it's okay because white people amirite.
"culture war, and Trump's on the losing side" - If you think Trump is the bulwark of that culture war then I think you missed it. Trump in and of himself is obviously terrible but he was never viewed in a vacuum. It was always in comparison to Clinton and the culture war I am referencing is in particular her form of politics and campaigning (shaming and virtue signals). There is a culture in the US that thinks that "there is a special place in hell for women that don't vote for Clinton" or "that you are a traitor to your race if you don't support Obama". That is the language of a racist and sexist. Policy and good governance are secondary to securing and maintaining power. Why argue the difficult positions of policy and the role of proper governance when it is easier and proven to work to shame, bait, and name call.
democracy == two wolves and a sheep deciding dinner.
What keeps citizens from voting away your rights (or anyone sufficiently unpopular)? Yes, voters are a mob and if there isn't any check or balance to the people they become a lynch mob or as GP said "it's legal if the people say it's legal". IOW, "it's legal to take away your rights if the people say it's legal".
Just because 'the people' say it's legal doesn't mean it is. There are limits to the peoples power just as there are limits to the governments power. At the very least there should be. That is one (of many) reason for representative government over direct democracy.
Note, I wasn't commenting on the voters of Catalonia but more on the generality of the OPs statement.
Trump's been alienating the rest of the Republican base
I don't know if this is true. Even the recent falling out of GOP senators isn't enough because there are other factors involved. For one example, Sen. Flake was already unpopular and was on the verge of losing in the next primary. Better to go out 'as a man of principle that stood up the evils Trump' instead of languishing in the lose of support from your constituents. Honestly, if you wanted to stand up to the evils of Trump why would you resign from the Senate? One of the few places you CAN stand up to Trump in a very real way. The ACA repeal probably was stopped by McCain alone. That is a lot of power to give up because... reasons.
I think part of the problem why that is hard to know is because of the underlying culture war. Trump can lose on policy but win on culture enough that could carry him to reelection. Also by being controversial enough, it gives other GOP congress-critters an out that may seem contradictory. Rand Paul for example, is not supporting Trumps agenda and yet is favored to win reelection unlike Flake (which Flake did vote in support of Trump policy).
The only path to victory is to appeal to your constituents. Pauls and Flakes constituents have different needs. Trump may not need to deliver the policy needs of their constituents to win a culture war and the next general election. Just as Paul may not need to deliver the same policy needs of Trump to win his reelection.
IIRC, the UK and Scotland agreed there would be a vote and that recent referendum was that agreement being upheld thereby making any successful vote of independence legal. Scotland joined under the assumption that such a vote would happen just as the UK agreed they would accept the results of such a vote.
As opposed to having no legal framework or agreement that would "allow" a vote of independence as in the case of Spain.
, you've been told about it before, you'll just repeat it again, ad nauseum
My apologies A. Coward but an old granny like me can't remember well. Perhaps, you can help an old hag like me out and give me something more concrete to nauseate my churned butter. I can stir the paint too if you wish but I'm afraid that my creamed panties won't clean very easily.
Am curious your thoughts, how far does that go? The state, the county, the city, the municipality, the property, the region (being made of potentially multiple jurisdictions).
Is there a limit to that right and if so what is it? If there is not a limit, can any jurisdiction with 50% +1 secede from a host? And does the host have to consent in order for secession be legitimate in the eyes of other sovereign states?
Only talking about peaceful secession for obvious reasons.
Well, I assumed you were holding your breath for a thorough investigation. The FBI did investigate it and has a copy of the server and recommended the original server to be repurposed.
As far as your other stuff, I agree. I wonder if it was malice or stupidity to delete the server when it was recommended by the FBI. Normally, unless evidence suggest otherwise, I subscribe to Hanlons razor. The more I read about this case the more I am leaning toward that razor.
Honestly, I don't think this is some smoking gun of Russian interference, or election stealing and even the FBI say as much. At most it is, as you say, contempt of court, or some other legal rule that was broken. Still worth further investigation but probably not as bad as others are making it.
Embracing is even more fanciful. Tell me, when did establishment GOP accept Trump? Why did Trump have fewer votes in the primaries and general election than other Republicans? The facts do not support the claim.
AmiMoJo's been on record for the Right-wing's blindness for over 10 years.
Ok, then he seems to purposefully misrepresent many positions especially lately. So, his knowledge may not be as stunningly limited as it is exceedingly one sided which is functionally the same. If you cannot accurately represent an idea how do you know it's wrong?
you going to give us the same old spiel you've regurgitated before
If there is something wrong with any spiel I regurgitate then won't you be a dear and be so kind, A. Coward, to let me know. I'm afraid my granny fingers have churned too much butter to be a useful emetic.
I read the arstechna article and it didn't say they broke the law. One of the plaintiffs suing them are saying that the records should have been preserved even without a court order, of course they are saying GA broke the law because that is basis of their lawsuit.
The article also says: "In accordance with standard operating procedures, an after-action report was prepared. This report outlined hardware improvements for the Center, including repurposing the impacted server and surplusing servers that had exceeded end of life. As part of the report, the original server that had been investigated by the FBI was designated to be repurposed, and the drives on the server were erased and the server made available for alternative uses."
That isn't as nefarious as "These guys knowingly broke the law.".
Well, one did allow the FBI to have the server to conclude their investigation while retaining an image in the event of pending litigation unlike some other group and server.
That dead horse you speak of is a blatant example of rules for thee not for me.
As another poster below linked. If it was hidden, the FBI missed it.
"While the server was in the possession of the Bureau, a forensic image or copy of all the data on the server was made and held by the agency. Following the notification from the FBI that no data was compromised and the investigation was closed"
That is how it is everywhere it is close. It is one reason why "hacking" the election would be difficult in the US. You have to find the districts that are close 50/50 and nudge it in one direction without being seen across the country in different states with different election laws and oversight rules across a lot of voting districts.
I'm thinking this is a clear violation of election law.
FTA, "Since the server was not under a court protection order, the destruction of its data is not illegal but it is extremely suspicious."
I am curious though, does the purpose of the server determine the time records must be kept? Was the server used to tally votes or keep totals or was it holding voter registration data? I haven't seen a clear answer on what the server did.
Besides circumstantial evidence there isn't much to go on.
, it is fair and indeed quite essential to turn any discussion of steel working into a discussion on the dangers of Christianity and the atrocities committed by Christians during the Crusades?
Depends on context of the discussion but for the most part it's fair but nothing is ever essential (I never argued it was essential).
Frankly, if we wanted to compare the two discussions it would be: 1) Article describing European steel work and art in a game 2) lamenting on whether it is European if early metallurgy/steel work was stolen during the crusades
I think that is perfectly fair and valid. However, if there was an article describing steel working processes for European industrial needs then lamenting on early metallurgy/steel working being stolen is irrelevant to the conversation. See the difference?
When it comes to art or culture - history is always relevant because everything about art and culture is shaped by the past.
Hyperbole much? Pointing out history is not xenophobic.
one of you alt-right
What have I said that is even remotely alt-right? What did op say that was alt-right? I don't eve think you know what xenophobia or alt-right is if you think anything I have written are those things.
some grand debate about bad things that people practicing Islam did at some point in history and they try to tar all moslems with the same brush
How did OP or I tar all Muslims with the same brush as historical Muslims? Islam has done and still does bad things. Do you get on the same mouth frothing rant when someone says "Christians were bad in the past"?
ow it is essential to turn a harmless discussion of Islamic geometric art
What is the history of that art? Does it include the conquest of cultures that had an early influence on the geometric art? You are arbitrarily limiting the discussion because you seem uncomfortable acknowledging history. Many "harmless" discussions end up dragging up the past for whatever reason, do you have the same mouth foaming reaction or do you think Islam should be treated differently?
about atrocities committed by Islamic armies over a thousand years ago and having trouble with that even because one has f**k all to do with the other
If the conquered culture influenced the art in question then it is relevant. I hope you have the same fervent defense of religion when it isn't islam.
Slashdot Mirror
You lost me at: "last hurrah of the white Christian majority". It sounds very denigrating as if the needs of white or Christians should be ignored or that their choices are less important and their representation insulting because reasons. I don't understand the point in generalizing an entire race or religion like that. If there is specific items that are being proposed that are bad then deal with those specifics instead of looking at the immutable characteristics of the individuals that proposed those bad things.
Demographically, this is the last hurrah of blacks... What are you ethnically cleansing them by breeding them out of existence and replacing them with other races???? That is a disgusting thing to say and why you and others say it does not make sense to me. But it's okay because white people amirite.
"culture war, and Trump's on the losing side" - If you think Trump is the bulwark of that culture war then I think you missed it. Trump in and of himself is obviously terrible but he was never viewed in a vacuum. It was always in comparison to Clinton and the culture war I am referencing is in particular her form of politics and campaigning (shaming and virtue signals). There is a culture in the US that thinks that "there is a special place in hell for women that don't vote for Clinton" or "that you are a traitor to your race if you don't support Obama". That is the language of a racist and sexist. Policy and good governance are secondary to securing and maintaining power. Why argue the difficult positions of policy and the role of proper governance when it is easier and proven to work to shame, bait, and name call.
I'm sorry you missed the boat.
I added more detail where none was needed.
democracy == two wolves and a sheep deciding dinner.
What keeps citizens from voting away your rights (or anyone sufficiently unpopular)? Yes, voters are a mob and if there isn't any check or balance to the people they become a lynch mob or as GP said "it's legal if the people say it's legal". IOW, "it's legal to take away your rights if the people say it's legal".
Just because 'the people' say it's legal doesn't mean it is. There are limits to the peoples power just as there are limits to the governments power. At the very least there should be. That is one (of many) reason for representative government over direct democracy.
Note, I wasn't commenting on the voters of Catalonia but more on the generality of the OPs statement.
Trump's been alienating the rest of the Republican base
I don't know if this is true. Even the recent falling out of GOP senators isn't enough because there are other factors involved. For one example, Sen. Flake was already unpopular and was on the verge of losing in the next primary. Better to go out 'as a man of principle that stood up the evils Trump' instead of languishing in the lose of support from your constituents. Honestly, if you wanted to stand up to the evils of Trump why would you resign from the Senate? One of the few places you CAN stand up to Trump in a very real way. The ACA repeal probably was stopped by McCain alone. That is a lot of power to give up because... reasons.
I think part of the problem why that is hard to know is because of the underlying culture war. Trump can lose on policy but win on culture enough that could carry him to reelection. Also by being controversial enough, it gives other GOP congress-critters an out that may seem contradictory. Rand Paul for example, is not supporting Trumps agenda and yet is favored to win reelection unlike Flake (which Flake did vote in support of Trump policy).
The only path to victory is to appeal to your constituents. Pauls and Flakes constituents have different needs. Trump may not need to deliver the policy needs of their constituents to win a culture war and the next general election. Just as Paul may not need to deliver the same policy needs of Trump to win his reelection.
IIRC, the UK and Scotland agreed there would be a vote and that recent referendum was that agreement being upheld thereby making any successful vote of independence legal. Scotland joined under the assumption that such a vote would happen just as the UK agreed they would accept the results of such a vote.
As opposed to having no legal framework or agreement that would "allow" a vote of independence as in the case of Spain.
Lynch mob?
, you've been told about it before, you'll just repeat it again, ad nauseum
My apologies A. Coward but an old granny like me can't remember well. Perhaps, you can help an old hag like me out and give me something more concrete to nauseate my churned butter. I can stir the paint too if you wish but I'm afraid that my creamed panties won't clean very easily.
right to secede
Am curious your thoughts, how far does that go? The state, the county, the city, the municipality, the property, the region (being made of potentially multiple jurisdictions).
Is there a limit to that right and if so what is it? If there is not a limit, can any jurisdiction with 50% +1 secede from a host? And does the host have to consent in order for secession be legitimate in the eyes of other sovereign states?
Only talking about peaceful secession for obvious reasons.
Well, I assumed you were holding your breath for a thorough investigation. The FBI did investigate it and has a copy of the server and recommended the original server to be repurposed.
As far as your other stuff, I agree. I wonder if it was malice or stupidity to delete the server when it was recommended by the FBI. Normally, unless evidence suggest otherwise, I subscribe to Hanlons razor. The more I read about this case the more I am leaning toward that razor.
Honestly, I don't think this is some smoking gun of Russian interference, or election stealing and even the FBI say as much. At most it is, as you say, contempt of court, or some other legal rule that was broken. Still worth further investigation but probably not as bad as others are making it.
Embracing is even more fanciful. Tell me, when did establishment GOP accept Trump? Why did Trump have fewer votes in the primaries and general election than other Republicans? The facts do not support the claim.
AmiMoJo's been on record for the Right-wing's blindness for over 10 years.
Ok, then he seems to purposefully misrepresent many positions especially lately. So, his knowledge may not be as stunningly limited as it is exceedingly one sided which is functionally the same. If you cannot accurately represent an idea how do you know it's wrong?
you going to give us the same old spiel you've regurgitated before
If there is something wrong with any spiel I regurgitate then won't you be a dear and be so kind, A. Coward, to let me know. I'm afraid my granny fingers have churned too much butter to be a useful emetic.
I read the arstechna article and it didn't say they broke the law. One of the plaintiffs suing them are saying that the records should have been preserved even without a court order, of course they are saying GA broke the law because that is basis of their lawsuit.
The article also says: "In accordance with standard operating procedures, an after-action report was prepared. This report outlined hardware improvements for the Center, including repurposing the impacted server and surplusing servers that had exceeded end of life. As part of the report, the original server that had been investigated by the FBI was designated to be repurposed, and the drives on the server were erased and the server made available for alternative uses."
That isn't as nefarious as "These guys knowingly broke the law.".
https://arstechnica.com/tech-p...
Infiltrated by the alt-right? Tried to warn them?
Your knowledge of political history in the US particularly for the GOP is stunningly limited.
Well, one did allow the FBI to have the server to conclude their investigation while retaining an image in the event of pending litigation unlike some other group and server.
That dead horse you speak of is a blatant example of rules for thee not for me.
You can breathe now.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-p...
could be hidden by this
As another poster below linked. If it was hidden, the FBI missed it.
"While the server was in the possession of the Bureau, a forensic image or copy of all the data on the server was made and held by the agency. Following the notification from the FBI that no data was compromised and the investigation was closed"
You called?
That is how it is everywhere it is close. It is one reason why "hacking" the election would be difficult in the US. You have to find the districts that are close 50/50 and nudge it in one direction without being seen across the country in different states with different election laws and oversight rules across a lot of voting districts.
I'm thinking this is a clear violation of election law.
FTA, "Since the server was not under a court protection order, the destruction of its data is not illegal but it is extremely suspicious."
I am curious though, does the purpose of the server determine the time records must be kept? Was the server used to tally votes or keep totals or was it holding voter registration data? I haven't seen a clear answer on what the server did.
Besides circumstantial evidence there isn't much to go on.
, it is fair and indeed quite essential to turn any discussion of steel working into a discussion on the dangers of Christianity and the atrocities committed by Christians during the Crusades?
Depends on context of the discussion but for the most part it's fair but nothing is ever essential (I never argued it was essential).
Frankly, if we wanted to compare the two discussions it would be:
1) Article describing European steel work and art in a game
2) lamenting on whether it is European if early metallurgy/steel work was stolen during the crusades
I think that is perfectly fair and valid. However, if there was an article describing steel working processes for European industrial needs then lamenting on early metallurgy/steel working being stolen is irrelevant to the conversation. See the difference?
When it comes to art or culture - history is always relevant because everything about art and culture is shaped by the past.
kek. power to ya even if delusional.
xenophobic sermon
Hyperbole much? Pointing out history is not xenophobic.
one of you alt-right
What have I said that is even remotely alt-right? What did op say that was alt-right? I don't eve think you know what xenophobia or alt-right is if you think anything I have written are those things.
some grand debate about bad things that people practicing Islam did at some point in history and they try to tar all moslems with the same brush
How did OP or I tar all Muslims with the same brush as historical Muslims? Islam has done and still does bad things. Do you get on the same mouth frothing rant when someone says "Christians were bad in the past"?
ow it is essential to turn a harmless discussion of Islamic geometric art
What is the history of that art? Does it include the conquest of cultures that had an early influence on the geometric art? You are arbitrarily limiting the discussion because you seem uncomfortable acknowledging history. Many "harmless" discussions end up dragging up the past for whatever reason, do you have the same mouth foaming reaction or do you think Islam should be treated differently?
about atrocities committed by Islamic armies over a thousand years ago and having trouble with that even because one has f**k all to do with the other
If the conquered culture influenced the art in question then it is relevant. I hope you have the same fervent defense of religion when it isn't islam.
k.
troll harder next time.
*note there should be a line above the MMDLXV in MMDLXVMMCCXCV
et tu r1348 ( MMDLXVMMCCXCV ) ???
nullum!!!!!!!