In 1968, the Paris Peace talks, intended to put an end to the 13-year-long Vietnam War, failed because an aide working for then-Presidential candidate Richard Nixon convinced the South Vietnamese to walk away from the dealings.
An American, a presidential candidate, called up the head of a country we were trying to make peace with, and said "if you don't broker the peace, I'll give you a better deal when I'm in office".
Eventually, Nixon won by just 1 percent of the popular vote. “Once in office he escalated the war into Laos and Cambodia, with the loss of an additional 22,000 American lives, before finally settling for a peace agreement in 1973 that was within grasp in 1968,” says the BBC.
Derailing a peace talk, extending a brutal and pointless war costing tens of thousands of American lives, for political gain.
That's really, *really* bad... even by today's standards.
Does [Trump] have an ounce of integrity to his being? Does he have any comprehension of right and wrong? His racist brain-spasming and the fact that he got rich from inheriting his dad's fortune and multiplied it through ponzi schemes leads me to believe that the man is a nihilistic narcissist.
I think everyone will agree that Trump loves money. A lot. Even Trump's most ardent supporters.
Did you know that Trump spent about $80,000 to run an ad in favor of the death penalty for the kids who confessed to the rape and murder of the Central Park jogger in 1989?
Funny thing about that story. They were innocent and their confessions were coerced lies. The REAL rapist was identified more than 10 years later and the kids (grown into prison-hardened adults) were released. No one seems to have detected any apology from Trump.
I had originally thought that Hillary had only the one issue (E-mail scandal), but it turns out she's got a whole rack of skeletons in her closet.
If particular note, she made (what she called) a "shameless pitch" to Russia on behalf of Boeing. Russia made a multi-billion dollar deal with Boeing, and Boing then put $900,000 into the Clinton foundation.
Or giving the OK for a uranium deal to a close friend, after which the same close friend put $2.35 million into the Clinton foundation.
Trump has a history of getting money through business, but Hillary has a history of getting money through corruption.
Obama should ask for pardon from the people of Europe. I reckon his pushing for remain caused a fair number people to vote the the other way.
This makes the tacit assumption that leaving the EU was a bad decision.
The [brexit vote] demographics show that a large percentage of people with a degree voted to leave (43% leave versus 57% remain), so you can't say with certainty that staying was the smart thing to do.
The critics are particularly vocal, but not everyone thinks it was a bad move.
That's an interesting thought, I had to look it up.
Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon, for all offences "committed or may have committed".
NOW, THEREFORE, I, GERALD R. FORD, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, pursuant to the pardon power conferred upon me by Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, have granted and by these presents do grant a full, free, and absolute pardon unto Richard Nixon for all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 20, 1969 through August 9, 1974.
Apparently the presidential pardon is for crimes, not offences.
All this crap just because tax preparation companies throw lobbying money to keep the current system. Most Americans would not need to actually file for taxes, the IRS already has all the data it needs, but noooo we have to keep an obsolete industry going no matter the cost...
Donald Trump's position on tax reform eliminates much of the paperwork. If you're single and earn less than $25,000 or jointly earn less than $50,000 you pay no tax. Send in a single-page form and you're done.
There's not a lot of federal income to be had from low wage earners, so it makes perfect sense to eliminate the extra work on both sides. Also, poor people don't have to spend money on tax filing services (H&R Block, et al).
Poor people get to keep more of their money, the IRS has a lot less work to do (estimated 75 million households), and the federal government gets just as much revenue.
Hillary Clinton doesn't have a unified plan to reform tax reporting (posted on her website).
If you think this issue is important, elect Hillary and nothing will change.
The ignorance of the anti-EU crowd is mind-boggling.
The demographics show that 53% of [English] people with a degree voted to stay.
Seems like the smart thing to do, right? If most of the enlightened, educated people think staying is the right move, then it's 'gotta be the right choice.
Yes?
As it happens, 47% of people with a degree voted to leave. Basically, you smart-arses couldn't even convince your own camp to make the "right" choice.
But also note that about 20% of English population has a degree.
So, the people who voted to leave have a higher proportion of degrees than the population average.
How is your "ignorance of the anti-EU crowd" valid in the light of these facts?
The result was very narrow. The turn-out was relatively low for such an important decision. A lot of people are expressing regret, the victorious side instantly reneged on a number of promises and the predicted economic meltdown that people didn't believe would happen happened.
Yep. Lots of reasons to disavow a democratically voted referendum.
Can you think of any reason why disavowing the vote would be bad?
I don't have a dog in this fight, but a (Brit) friend asked me about this a couple of months ago. The conversation went like this:
Him: Should I vote for the UK to leave the EU? Me: Yes, absolutely. Him: Why? Me: Because if you don't, nothing will change
Expounding on that last bit, note that if the vote had happened 5 years ago the results would probably have been 55% stay/45% leave. If you'd done the vote 10 years ago it would have been 60% stay/40% leave, and the poll actually taken in 1975 was 67% stay/33% leave.
Leaving the EU right at this moment may seem like a bad idea, but from the historical perspective it's the most efficiently timed revolution that's ever been.
It's clear that being part of the EU was causing a slow buildup of problems for the English people. Dissatisfaction was on the rise, and there were valid reasons for wanting change.
The EU is blithely unsupportive of the needs of its members - it's like any government who, once they are in power, tends to ignore the needs of its people. Looking at Greece as an example, it's clear that the EU puts the needs of the banks ahead of the needs of Greece as a country. As many people pointed out, the EU could have just let Greece default and the banks take a loss. That would have been the best outcome for Greece and its people, but the banks...
The EU management saw the referendum coming and did nothing about it. They could easily have swung the vote by making concessions.
And note that earlier, Cameron went to the EU to ask for some relief. It's my understanding that not only did they say "no", they treated him disrespectfully. (And probably were chuckling to themselves saying "what 'ya gonna do - leave? HAH HAH HAH!)
And now I hear that even if the UK manages to reverse the referendum, France, Germany, and Brussels won't let them. The EU in general didn't like the UK to begin with, are glad to see them go, and will enforce the referendum in any case.
Really, it was a bad situation and there'll be tough times at first, but when the dust has settled I think you'll see that this is much better for the English people.
Oh, and about "this is sooooo bad", note that no one has accurately described the flip side of the situation. John Oliver's treatment of the flip side could be summed up as "yes, it's not perfect". It was clear that he, and all the woo in the media, was trumping up all the disadvantages of leaving without addressing or even describing the reasons people wanted to leave.
Lots of people used extreme rhetoric to try to get people to stay (Cameron's various statements were particularly transparent), and it was transparently bullshit.
Once the dust settles, I think the UK will be stronger, more secure, and more satisfied.
Mix this with an online pharmacy and people the the deep South surrounded by Bible thumpers trying to keep them away from the evils of Birth Control can finally live the way they want.
Big difference between how they want and how they should.
Quick question: How should they live, and what's your authority for making that judgement?
With nearly 40 percent of all pregnancies in the United States unintended, birth control is a critical public health issue.
Wow, that statement really makes you want to click and read the text. It's emotional and powerful.
While an unintended pregnancy is a serious issue, note that the US fertility rate is now 1.88 births per woman. The replacement rate for population is about 2.1 (births per woman, depends on the geographical area: percentage of births that live to adulthood).
If we can eliminate the 40% of all births that are unintended, the US population would drop off a cliff. This is already a problem for many areas such as Japan and Germany.
The term critical means "pertaining to or of the nature of a crisis", with "crisis" being " time when a difficult or important decision must be made" (with reference to: emergency, catastrophe, calamity, and doomsday).
This is an improvement and one I heartily support.
Nevertheless, calling the situation a "crisis" is a bit melodramatic... don't you think?
They didn't attempt to defund Obamacare. They DID defund Obamacare.
Shutting down the government happened because Obama refused to accept their budget without Obamacare spending. Since Obama refused to accept the democratically voted on and democratically chosen budget, the only option left was government shutdown. Which is what happened.
January 20th, 2017 and President Trump's inauguration can't get here soon enough.
And both actions were entirely within the rules.
It's entirely within the purview of the legislature and president to get into these situations. Even though it's bad, it's still legal.
And furthermore, it's expected that the legislature will base their actions on conscience, and the president as well.
I've no problem with either side using their power to do this - it forces us to deal with a problem.
The president doesn't order the police to surround congress, preventing people from leaving unless a vote goes his way.
I pretty much agree with everything you said. You seem like you might be interesting to talk to, so I'm going to express the opposing view on one point and I'd like to get your response.
I have no problem with the government having secrets, and I have no problem with secret lists. It's pretty-much expected that criminal investigation has to be done with a measure of secrecy in order to succeed. Terrorism is criminal behaviour, so having a list of suspected terrorists is also not a problem.
The problem arises when there are restrictions without due process.
Saying that someone is prevented from flying, for instance, should be done using due process. It should be evidence presented to the judicial side, and the defendant should be able to respond and object.
Killing a citizen, for instance, should not be the result of a secret list(*).
Have a secret list of suspects, that's not a problem. Use that secret list to deprive rights... that's the problem. It's item c) in your list.
We have process for a reason.
And for the record, as many *many* people have pointed out, the chance of being killed by terrorism is vanishingly small in the US. We're eliminating rights in response to a problem that doesn't exist.
(*) Or, for that matter, a secret law. Which was invoked at the time the assassination was carried out.
Nothing is proceeding. A minority faction of the minority party (Democrats) decided they didn't like the compromise bill, so they shut down the House entirely.
The bipartisan bill that the speaker planned to take to vote would prevent the ~10,00 citizens** and 90,000 foreigners on the terrorism "no-fly"* list from buying firearms without approval, and allow them to appeal the denial in court.
Rather than accomplish SOMETHING that's maybe somewhat reasonable, these 60 or so Democrats decided to shut down Congress until they get their way and ban scary looking guns.
* The "no-fly" list doesn't stop people from flying. It means they can't fly into or out of the country.
** The US has about 300 million citizens, meaning that on in 30,000 is on the list.
I have to say, denying someone from purchasing a gun based on a secret list seems 'kinda... you know... wrong?
And also, why is always democrats trying to do an end-run around the democratic process?
We don't see Trump supporters blocking highway ramps and flipping police cars when a vote doesn't go the way they want. Why do the democrats think that's appropriate?
Riot in the streets when the government does something bad, yes. White cop shoots an unarmed black kid... go for it! But protest and riot when a candidate gets a lot of votes? WTF?
Sam Harris had a podcast which contains an audio clip of an imam teaching that it's OK to kill gays, that it was the compassionate thing to do. I got the impression from the 'cast that the clip was from an imam in the Orlando area, and that it was taken a week or so before the shooting.
(I can't link the specific podcast at the moment because the site that I read it at is temporarily offline.)
We have often thought that the right to practice religion is absolute, but I'm wondering now if it should be.
Does being a religion give you a license to say anything you like? We have laws against hate speech even though we have free speech in general, and we have laws against speech that encourage a specific crime.
We guarantee freedom of religion, but we also guarantee freedom of life.
Which one has priority?
Maybe it's time to prioritize freedom of life over the freedom of religion. Maybe we should say categorically that you *can't* preach that it's OK to kill people of a certain class, whatever the class might be.
This would apply to any religion, even Christian ones ("thou shall not suffer a witch to live"), and it would apply to all cases: people who leave the religion are free to go unmolested (Islam, Scientology), people that the religion dislikes would be free to go unmolested (Christianity, Islam, Hinduism), and so on.
As a country, I think we might legitimately say "not in this country" to these extreme views, and in these specific cases maybe intervene and say "no, you can't preach that even if your religion believes it".
Personal safety should be absolute, and the right to religion isn't more important.
In the aftermath of the Orlando shooting, imams haven't stopped teaching that gays should be killed.
There is some excellent analysis and commentary here, focusing on the metadata and and how it exposes the political/financial connections.... I *highly* recommend you scroll down and go thru the comments there, keeping in mind the Clinton foundation was accepting multi-million dollar gifts from mideastern countries while she was arranging arms deals as Secretary of State. BTW the site I linked is starting to remind me more and more of the old Groklaw.
I always see things like that and wonder whether anyone, anywhere can play a higher level of game.
The person releasing the documents could have thought through what would happen. Knowing and with reasonable prediction, he *could* have placed some false and condemning documents in with the stash - something that would be outrageous if true.
For the right and subtly-constructed data, the press would leap on it in a heartbeat and it be a sensation for a few days. Then it would be roundly disproven, and then it would cast doubt on all the other documents.
The end result would be a lot of people chaotically talking about that specific candidate for a few days. Depending on the persuasion dimension, that could be crafted to be good or bad for the chosen candidate. Misleading identity would be bad for the candidate: something that causes the public to give the candidate a derogatory nickname. Misleading facts would be good for the candidate: cause a lot of talk, easily dis-proven, and doesn't apply to their persona.
All we really see in this world is straightforward and transparent actions.
I'd like to see someone hatch a conspiracy or elaborate prank on the world, just to show that there are people who can do it.
I've noticed the same thing (as Jay): people are falling over themselves to try to bring Tesla down, and I haven't the first idea why.
GM stock price slumped a whopping 1.3% on news of its ignition recall that was actually killing people.
Apple hires some engineers with car experience, everyone guesses that they'll be making electric cars, and "OMG, this could be the end of Tesla!" (The stock drops 10% in a day).
Analyst price targets for Tesla are all over the map, going from $150 to $385.
Jay mentions that "we like noble failures more than we reward success". I think that's true, but it's also baffling.
A plan must be actionable to be a plan. His fantasy is not a plan. Actionable in the sense of possessing a legal method for implementation, including checks and balances from other branches of government and the whole messy issue of constitutionality.
This is why I despair of any intelligent conversation on this board.
Your blind obeisance to electing Hillary let's you say any damn thing you like, so long as it furthers your goal.
Her plan explicitly states that she will, in her own words, "Defend President Obama’s executive actions", widely recognized as making up legislation out of whole cloth, and explicitly contrary to existing legislation. (And 25 states sued to block him on it.)
You people keep pointing out how often Trump lies to the people, here's a perfect example of the lies that Clinton's supporters tell to the people.
The difference being, her lie will put millions of legitimate citizens out of a job.
For Donald Trump winning is more important that anything else, not truth or making clear what his plans are for the country. And some people like what is perceived a strong leader. He's just a bullshitter.
Apropos of nothing, I notice that Trump has seven positions, with a concrete plan of changes for each.
Hillary has 31 issues, which are all fuzzy and nondescript.
As a "for example"(*), we all know what Donald's position on immigration is. Here's an excerpt from Hillary's immigration reform issue:
Enact comprehensive immigration reform to create a pathway to citizenship, keep families together, and enable millions of workers to come out of the shadows. Defend President Obama’s executive actions to provide deportation relief for DREAMers and parents of Americans and lawful residents, and extend those actions to additional persons with sympathetic cases if Congress refuses to act. Promote naturalization and support immigrant integration. End family detention and close private immigrant detention centers.
Notice the wording: she'll "Enact comprehensive immigration reform to create a pathway to citizenship". Nothing concrete, gives you a good feeling without saying anything specific.
If you want to "Promote naturalization and support immigrant integration", then vote for Hillary.
Slashdot Mirror
If that's your idea of a meaningful discussion, then...
I win.
So TVT, despite being chinks, are actually a bunch of big lipped stinking nasty chocolatey worthless nigger jigaboo porch monkeys!!
I'm curious.
Does anyone know why these posts keep appearing? It seems like there's one at the top of every discussion.
I can't imagine a real purpose for this.
Does anyone know what the goal or intent is? Can anyone explain how this benefits the poster in any way?
No, you are lying, but what else do you expect from a Trump supporter?
Perhaps we can have a meaningful discussion if you can start with a single truth: Who do you hate most?
If you want to start a meaningful conversation, how about you stop name-calling and tell us something about Hillary that is
a) Backed up by a reference, and
b) Encourages the reader to vote *for* her?
It's easy to call someone names. It's much *much* harder to have an actual... you know... meaningful discussion.
Until then, I'll just assume you're just another shallow-thinking name-caller.
In 1968, the Paris Peace talks, intended to put an end to the 13-year-long Vietnam War, failed because an aide working for then-Presidential candidate Richard Nixon convinced the South Vietnamese to walk away from the dealings.
An American, a presidential candidate, called up the head of a country we were trying to make peace with, and said "if you don't broker the peace, I'll give you a better deal when I'm in office".
Eventually, Nixon won by just 1 percent of the popular vote. “Once in office he escalated the war into Laos and Cambodia, with the loss of an additional 22,000 American lives, before finally settling for a peace agreement in 1973 that was within grasp in 1968,” says the BBC.
Derailing a peace talk, extending a brutal and pointless war costing tens of thousands of American lives, for political gain.
That's really, *really* bad... even by today's standards.
Who do you hate most?
Same question can be made of a Hillary supporter.
And a Sanders supporter.
Does [Trump] have an ounce of integrity to his being? Does he have any comprehension of right and wrong? His racist brain-spasming and the fact that he got rich from inheriting his dad's fortune and multiplied it through ponzi schemes leads me to believe that the man is a nihilistic narcissist.
You might be interested in some of Hillary's less publicized dealings here (The dirty two dozen: Clinton's top controversies ) and here (Top 10 Clinton conflicts of interest).
Would you care to comment on Hillary's integrity, given the links provided?
I think everyone will agree that Trump loves money. A lot. Even Trump's most ardent supporters.
Did you know that Trump spent about $80,000 to run an ad in favor of the death penalty for the kids who confessed to the rape and murder of the Central Park jogger in 1989?
Funny thing about that story. They were innocent and their confessions were coerced lies. The REAL rapist was identified more than 10 years later and the kids (grown into prison-hardened adults) were released. No one seems to have detected any apology from Trump.
I had originally thought that Hillary had only the one issue (E-mail scandal), but it turns out she's got a whole rack of skeletons in her closet.
If particular note, she made (what she called) a "shameless pitch" to Russia on behalf of Boeing. Russia made a multi-billion dollar deal with Boeing, and Boing then put $900,000 into the Clinton foundation.
Or giving the OK for a uranium deal to a close friend, after which the same close friend put $2.35 million into the Clinton foundation.
Trump has a history of getting money through business, but Hillary has a history of getting money through corruption.
She's not called dirty Hillary for nothing!
Obama should ask for pardon from the people of Europe. I reckon his pushing for remain caused a fair number people to vote the the other way.
This makes the tacit assumption that leaving the EU was a bad decision.
The [brexit vote] demographics show that a large percentage of people with a degree voted to leave (43% leave versus 57% remain), so you can't say with certainty that staying was the smart thing to do.
The critics are particularly vocal, but not everyone thinks it was a bad move.
That's an interesting thought, I had to look it up.
Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon, for all offences "committed or may have committed".
NOW, THEREFORE, I, GERALD R. FORD, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, pursuant to the pardon power conferred upon me by Article II, Section 2, of the Constitution, have granted and by these presents do grant a full, free, and absolute pardon unto Richard Nixon for all offenses against the United States which he, Richard Nixon, has committed or may have committed or taken part in during the period from January 20, 1969 through August 9, 1974.
Apparently the presidential pardon is for crimes, not offences.
Which, I suppose, is the right way to do it.
All this crap just because tax preparation companies throw lobbying money to keep the current system. Most Americans would not need to actually file for taxes, the IRS already has all the data it needs, but noooo we have to keep an obsolete industry going no matter the cost...
Donald Trump's position on tax reform eliminates much of the paperwork. If you're single and earn less than $25,000 or jointly earn less than $50,000 you pay no tax. Send in a single-page form and you're done.
There's not a lot of federal income to be had from low wage earners, so it makes perfect sense to eliminate the extra work on both sides. Also, poor people don't have to spend money on tax filing services (H&R Block, et al).
Poor people get to keep more of their money, the IRS has a lot less work to do (estimated 75 million households), and the federal government gets just as much revenue.
Hillary Clinton doesn't have a unified plan to reform tax reporting (posted on her website).
If you think this issue is important, elect Hillary and nothing will change.
The ignorance of the anti-EU crowd is mind-boggling.
The demographics show that 53% of [English] people with a degree voted to stay.
Seems like the smart thing to do, right? If most of the enlightened, educated people think staying is the right move, then it's 'gotta be the right choice.
Yes?
As it happens, 47% of people with a degree voted to leave. Basically, you smart-arses couldn't even convince your own camp to make the "right" choice.
But also note that about 20% of English population has a degree.
So, the people who voted to leave have a higher proportion of degrees than the population average.
How is your "ignorance of the anti-EU crowd" valid in the light of these facts?
I'd really like to know.
You're just one of the vocal minority.
Rhetoric doesn't prove your point.
The result was very narrow. The turn-out was relatively low for such an important decision. A lot of people are expressing regret, the victorious side instantly reneged on a number of promises and the predicted economic meltdown that people didn't believe would happen happened.
Yep. Lots of reasons to disavow a democratically voted referendum.
Can you think of any reason why disavowing the vote would be bad?
I don't have a dog in this fight, but a (Brit) friend asked me about this a couple of months ago. The conversation went like this:
Him: Should I vote for the UK to leave the EU?
Me: Yes, absolutely.
Him: Why?
Me: Because if you don't, nothing will change
Expounding on that last bit, note that if the vote had happened 5 years ago the results would probably have been 55% stay/45% leave. If you'd done the vote 10 years ago it would have been 60% stay/40% leave, and the poll actually taken in 1975 was 67% stay/33% leave.
Leaving the EU right at this moment may seem like a bad idea, but from the historical perspective it's the most efficiently timed revolution that's ever been.
It's clear that being part of the EU was causing a slow buildup of problems for the English people. Dissatisfaction was on the rise, and there were valid reasons for wanting change.
The EU is blithely unsupportive of the needs of its members - it's like any government who, once they are in power, tends to ignore the needs of its people. Looking at Greece as an example, it's clear that the EU puts the needs of the banks ahead of the needs of Greece as a country. As many people pointed out, the EU could have just let Greece default and the banks take a loss. That would have been the best outcome for Greece and its people, but the banks...
The EU management saw the referendum coming and did nothing about it. They could easily have swung the vote by making concessions.
And note that earlier, Cameron went to the EU to ask for some relief. It's my understanding that not only did they say "no", they treated him disrespectfully. (And probably were chuckling to themselves saying "what 'ya gonna do - leave? HAH HAH HAH!)
And now I hear that even if the UK manages to reverse the referendum, France, Germany, and Brussels won't let them. The EU in general didn't like the UK to begin with, are glad to see them go, and will enforce the referendum in any case.
Really, it was a bad situation and there'll be tough times at first, but when the dust has settled I think you'll see that this is much better for the English people.
Oh, and about "this is sooooo bad", note that no one has accurately described the flip side of the situation. John Oliver's treatment of the flip side could be summed up as "yes, it's not perfect". It was clear that he, and all the woo in the media, was trumping up all the disadvantages of leaving without addressing or even describing the reasons people wanted to leave.
Lots of people used extreme rhetoric to try to get people to stay (Cameron's various statements were particularly transparent), and it was transparently bullshit.
Once the dust settles, I think the UK will be stronger, more secure, and more satisfied.
Mix this with an online pharmacy and people the the deep South surrounded by Bible thumpers trying to keep them away from the evils of Birth Control can finally live the way they want.
Big difference between how they want and how they should.
Quick question: How should they live, and what's your authority for making that judgement?
With nearly 40 percent of all pregnancies in the United States unintended, birth control is a critical public health issue.
Wow, that statement really makes you want to click and read the text. It's emotional and powerful.
While an unintended pregnancy is a serious issue, note that the US fertility rate is now 1.88 births per woman. The replacement rate for population is about 2.1 (births per woman, depends on the geographical area: percentage of births that live to adulthood).
If we can eliminate the 40% of all births that are unintended, the US population would drop off a cliff. This is already a problem for many areas such as Japan and Germany.
The term critical means "pertaining to or of the nature of a crisis", with "crisis" being " time when a difficult or important decision must be made" (with reference to: emergency, catastrophe, calamity, and doomsday).
This is an improvement and one I heartily support.
Nevertheless, calling the situation a "crisis" is a bit melodramatic... don't you think?
They didn't attempt to defund Obamacare. They DID defund Obamacare.
Shutting down the government happened because Obama refused to accept their budget without Obamacare spending. Since Obama refused to accept the democratically voted on and democratically chosen budget, the only option left was government shutdown. Which is what happened.
January 20th, 2017 and President Trump's inauguration can't get here soon enough.
And both actions were entirely within the rules.
It's entirely within the purview of the legislature and president to get into these situations. Even though it's bad, it's still legal.
And furthermore, it's expected that the legislature will base their actions on conscience, and the president as well.
I've no problem with either side using their power to do this - it forces us to deal with a problem.
The president doesn't order the police to surround congress, preventing people from leaving unless a vote goes his way.
Yet. He's a democrat, after all.
I pretty much agree with everything you said. You seem like you might be interesting to talk to, so I'm going to express the opposing view on one point and I'd like to get your response.
I have no problem with the government having secrets, and I have no problem with secret lists. It's pretty-much expected that criminal investigation has to be done with a measure of secrecy in order to succeed. Terrorism is criminal behaviour, so having a list of suspected terrorists is also not a problem.
The problem arises when there are restrictions without due process.
Saying that someone is prevented from flying, for instance, should be done using due process. It should be evidence presented to the judicial side, and the defendant should be able to respond and object.
Killing a citizen, for instance, should not be the result of a secret list(*).
Disallowing a citizen to come home should not be the result of a secret list.
Have a secret list of suspects, that's not a problem. Use that secret list to deprive rights... that's the problem. It's item c) in your list.
We have process for a reason.
And for the record, as many *many* people have pointed out, the chance of being killed by terrorism is vanishingly small in the US. We're eliminating rights in response to a problem that doesn't exist.
(*) Or, for that matter, a secret law. Which was invoked at the time the assassination was carried out.
Good. We need less guns, not more.
Nobody should be able to walk into a Walmart and walk out with a cart full of machine guns and ammo.
No other "civilized" society accepts this nonsense and neither should the US.
Then you should get the constitution amended.
That's another aspect of "civilized" societies - you can't just pick-and-choose which rules to break.
Nothing is proceeding. A minority faction of the minority party (Democrats) decided they didn't like the compromise bill, so they shut down the House entirely.
The bipartisan bill that the speaker planned to take to vote would prevent the ~10,00 citizens** and 90,000 foreigners on the terrorism "no-fly"* list from buying firearms without approval, and allow them to appeal the denial in court.
Rather than accomplish SOMETHING that's maybe somewhat reasonable, these 60 or so Democrats decided to shut down Congress until they get their way and ban scary looking guns.
* The "no-fly" list doesn't stop people from flying. It means they can't fly into or out of the country.
** The US has about 300 million citizens, meaning that on in 30,000 is on the list.
I have to say, denying someone from purchasing a gun based on a secret list seems 'kinda... you know... wrong?
And also, why is always democrats trying to do an end-run around the democratic process?
We don't see Trump supporters blocking highway ramps and flipping police cars when a vote doesn't go the way they want. Why do the democrats think that's appropriate?
Riot in the streets when the government does something bad, yes. White cop shoots an unarmed black kid... go for it! But protest and riot when a candidate gets a lot of votes? WTF?
Why is it always Democrats pulling this shit?
Sam Harris had a podcast which contains an audio clip of an imam teaching that it's OK to kill gays, that it was the compassionate thing to do. I got the impression from the 'cast that the clip was from an imam in the Orlando area, and that it was taken a week or so before the shooting.
(I can't link the specific podcast at the moment because the site that I read it at is temporarily offline.)
We have often thought that the right to practice religion is absolute, but I'm wondering now if it should be.
Does being a religion give you a license to say anything you like? We have laws against hate speech even though we have free speech in general, and we have laws against speech that encourage a specific crime.
We guarantee freedom of religion, but we also guarantee freedom of life.
Which one has priority?
Maybe it's time to prioritize freedom of life over the freedom of religion. Maybe we should say categorically that you *can't* preach that it's OK to kill people of a certain class, whatever the class might be.
This would apply to any religion, even Christian ones ("thou shall not suffer a witch to live"), and it would apply to all cases: people who leave the religion are free to go unmolested (Islam, Scientology), people that the religion dislikes would be free to go unmolested (Christianity, Islam, Hinduism), and so on.
So for example, I would cite The Westboro Baptist church claiming that gays should be put to death, or evangelists calling on their flock to assasinate abortion providers.
As a country, I think we might legitimately say "not in this country" to these extreme views, and in these specific cases maybe intervene and say "no, you can't preach that even if your religion believes it".
Personal safety should be absolute, and the right to religion isn't more important.
In the aftermath of the Orlando shooting, imams haven't stopped teaching that gays should be killed.
Perhaps they should.
There is some excellent analysis and commentary here, focusing on the metadata and and how it exposes the political/financial connections.... I *highly* recommend you scroll down and go thru the comments there, keeping in mind the Clinton foundation was accepting multi-million dollar gifts from mideastern countries while she was arranging arms deals as Secretary of State. BTW the site I linked is starting to remind me more and more of the old Groklaw.
I always see things like that and wonder whether anyone, anywhere can play a higher level of game.
The person releasing the documents could have thought through what would happen. Knowing and with reasonable prediction, he *could* have placed some false and condemning documents in with the stash - something that would be outrageous if true.
For the right and subtly-constructed data, the press would leap on it in a heartbeat and it be a sensation for a few days. Then it would be roundly disproven, and then it would cast doubt on all the other documents.
The end result would be a lot of people chaotically talking about that specific candidate for a few days. Depending on the persuasion dimension, that could be crafted to be good or bad for the chosen candidate. Misleading identity would be bad for the candidate: something that causes the public to give the candidate a derogatory nickname. Misleading facts would be good for the candidate: cause a lot of talk, easily dis-proven, and doesn't apply to their persona.
All we really see in this world is straightforward and transparent actions.
I'd like to see someone hatch a conspiracy or elaborate prank on the world, just to show that there are people who can do it.
Jay Leno had some interesting things to say about Tesla.
I've noticed the same thing (as Jay): people are falling over themselves to try to bring Tesla down, and I haven't the first idea why.
GM stock price slumped a whopping 1.3% on news of its ignition recall that was actually killing people.
Apple hires some engineers with car experience, everyone guesses that they'll be making electric cars, and "OMG, this could be the end of Tesla!" (The stock drops 10% in a day).
Analyst price targets for Tesla are all over the map, going from $150 to $385.
Jay mentions that "we like noble failures more than we reward success". I think that's true, but it's also baffling.
Because of the "Just-world Fallacy".
FAGGOT
And a faggot too, I suppose.
A plan must be actionable to be a plan. His fantasy is not a plan. Actionable in the sense of possessing a legal method for implementation, including checks and balances from other branches of government and the whole messy issue of constitutionality.
This is why I despair of any intelligent conversation on this board.
Your blind obeisance to electing Hillary let's you say any damn thing you like, so long as it furthers your goal.
Her plan explicitly states that she will, in her own words, "Defend President Obama’s executive actions", widely recognized as making up legislation out of whole cloth, and explicitly contrary to existing legislation. (And 25 states sued to block him on it.)
You people keep pointing out how often Trump lies to the people, here's a perfect example of the lies that Clinton's supporters tell to the people.
The difference being, her lie will put millions of legitimate citizens out of a job.
You're an idiot.
And a coward.
Probably a paid blogger for the Clinton campaign.
For Donald Trump winning is more important that anything else, not truth or making clear what his plans are for the country. And some people like what is perceived a strong leader. He's just a bullshitter.
Apropos of nothing, I notice that Trump has seven positions, with a concrete plan of changes for each.
Hillary has 31 issues, which are all fuzzy and nondescript.
As a "for example"(*), we all know what Donald's position on immigration is. Here's an excerpt from Hillary's immigration reform issue:
Enact comprehensive immigration reform to create a pathway to citizenship, keep families together, and enable millions of workers to come out of the shadows.
Defend President Obama’s executive actions to provide deportation relief for DREAMers and parents of Americans and lawful residents, and extend those actions to additional persons with sympathetic cases if Congress refuses to act.
Promote naturalization and support immigrant integration.
End family detention and close private immigrant detention centers.
Notice the wording: she'll "Enact comprehensive immigration reform to create a pathway to citizenship". Nothing concrete, gives you a good feeling without saying anything specific.
If you want to "Promote naturalization and support immigrant integration", then vote for Hillary.
If you're worried that 11 million new job seekers suddenly on the market might make it hard for you to get by, then vote for Trump.
(*) I only used the immigration thing because everyone knows Donald's plan. Does anyone know what Hillary's position on tax reform is?