|
vyelkin posted:lmao the Guardian has an article exploring how Trump is causing wider divisions in voting intention among married people than ever before, and includes gems like this: Thank god for the 19th amendment.
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2016 14:58
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 15:13 |
|
|
cargo cult posted:bernie targetted white progressives because he was automatically crushing with people under 30 who are incredibly diverse. calling him the white rage candidate is loving beyond ridiculous, he's a jewish social democrat, get a grip. this sounds like wishful thinking from an AA lady incapable of understanding his seemingly out-of-nowhere popularity. Why would Cornell West of all people align himself with the "white rage" candidate. This tweet really irritates me. You probably shouldn't be relying for your point upon the good judgement of Cornell West, noted Jill Stein endorser.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2016 15:22
|
|
|
Stultus Maximus posted:He also called Obama a friend of the family and took Bernie's appointment of a seat on the platform committee right before joining Jill Stein. I'm just gonna say that I respected the man at one point but I'll leave this here: Pretty much, like it's not that I think Cornell West taints Bernie Sanders or anything, or that Bernie was some kind of white supremacist candidate or the same as Trump. Just that populism tends to look very similar no matter whether the anger is directed at the 1% or at the Washington insiders. And that's why I tend to be a little suspicious of it, overall.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 4, 2016 16:25
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:My confidence in Hillary's foreign policy just fell a little bit. Chief of Staff is not a FoPo focused position, and Hillary has never indicated that her foreign policy inclinations include "making the targets of humanitarian interventions pay for it"  Incidentally, this is what we mean when we say that progressivism is nearly entirely domestic, with only incidental association with any particular foreign policy viewpoint. You get a surprising number of these people with good domestic policy bona fides but then get blindsided by their weird and bad foreign policy positions. (Or no FoPo positions at all, because they've only ever served as the Tenacious Political Outsiders...)
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2016 13:54
|
|
|
A pretty good (teeny tiny) presser there for Clinton, she handled it well and gave good responses. Plus, no emails questions! Turns out if you just treat the press like the whiny pissbabies they are, they'll stop throwing tantrums for long enough to ask slightly less hackneyed questions.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2016 15:12
|
|
|
hiddenriverninja posted:I guarantee this is going to be some kid's name within the next two years. mentioning children's names, oh god now you've done it Yeah this is pretty much the deal-- in addition to clearly being an introvert who deals best with people on a one-on-one or small group level, she's had to deal with the kind of poo poo all ambitious women deal with, for years. A lot of the things people harp on about her are reactions to that.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2016 19:20
|
|
|
Mods please replace the Trump Tower gang tag with a basket of deplorables, thanks
|
|
#
¿
Sep 10, 2016 15:38
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:Guys read her actual statement. Yep, the whole point here was to get people arguing, not over whether Trump has deplorable supporters, but how many of his supporters are deplorable. Literally nobody, not even the Republicans, has contested the main point here, which is that plenty of Trump's supporters are racists, sexists, KKK grand wizards, et cetera. Now all she has to do is say "well maybe it's not exactly half but the point stands."
|
|
#
¿
Sep 10, 2016 19:54
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:It may shock you, but there are people who are on the fence between Clinton and not voting or Clinton and a 3rd party. Even if we take this as granted (and I'm not sure I've seen the polling to suggest that third-parties hurt Clinton more than Trump), Clinton's in the lead and with an electoral college advantage, which means she needs her wayward sheep less than Trump needs his.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 10, 2016 20:23
|
|
|
Noam Chomsky posted:Hillary gets elected president, immediately dies. You say this as though Hillary Clinton would not, through sheer force of malevolent spite, continue to serve as President for two full four-year terms, a grim lich queen powered by the despair of the Republican Party.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2016 03:50
|
|
|
Business Gorillas posted:I figure in skipping over dozens of pages at a time, in order of frequency: Nobody has talked about Bernie bros in this thread for ages except you.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2016 15:35
|
|
"
|
https://twitter.com/JenniferJJacobs/status/776829577796521984 https://twitter.com/JenniferJJacobs/status/776829670817796096
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2016 18:11
|
|
|
Investigating the rumor scans. I'm totally willing to believe that Hillary '08 would have pushed the birther thing... if there had been any truth to it. That's what convinced my Republican parents it was nonsense way back in the day-- because Hillary Clinton didn't bother to touch it.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2016 06:05
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Also the "2nd Amendment is for fighting the government" stuff is horseshit. The 2nd Amendment was to provide legal cover for slave states to operate the police state necessary to ward off and put down slave rebellions, and to allow frontier states to maintain resources to contest lands against Native Americans. And even if they were stupid enough to write "you can totes fight the government if you decide you don't like it" in (spoiler: they weren't), we settled that legal dispute with a little thing called the American Civil War. Okay, so this isn't true-- or at least, it's not completely true. They're really not worried about slave revolts so much at this point, what they're primarily worried about is the central government forming a standing army which will be less reluctant to trample a "just" rebellion, and more efficient at doing so. I'll quote the proceedings of the Virginia Ratifying Convention, where Madison (father of the Constitution), Mason (father of the Bill of Rights), Marshall (first Chief Justice), and Henry (hated the Constitution and central government in general) all argued at length about every aspect and failing of the Constitution: Madison on enforcement power posted:Mr. Madison supposed the reasons of this power to be so obvious that they would occur to most Gentlemen. If resistance should be made to the execution of the laws, he said, it ought to be overcome. This could be done only two ways; either by regular forces, or by the people. By one or the other it must unquestionably be done. If insurrections should arise, or invasions should take place, the people ought unquestionably to be employed to suppress and repel them, rather than a standing army. The best way to do these things, was to put the militia on a good and sure footing, and enable the Government to make use of their services when necessary. So, everyone recognized the necessity of the militias. They'd been an integral part of the colonial system of government since the beginning, and made a lot of sense for the very decentralized, frontier society that was early colonial America. Pretty much everyone, Federalists and Anti-federalists alike, found them preferable to a standing army, not because the militias could fight the central government, but because they were more likely to be an oppressive force than a standing army. (Implied is that they could also just refuse to enforce a law the people opposed, or refuse to convene to put down a "just" rebellion.) But those who would later go on to be Anti-Federalists, like Henry, objected to giving Congress authority to federalize the militias, feeling it strengthened the central government too much. Madison rolled his eyes and pointed out that you had to give Congress that power, or else they'd use a standing army to put down rebellions, which everyone agreed would suck. Standing armies were largely abhorred as a weapon of tyranny. So Mason, who spends most of the time trying to find a compromise between the two major factions (and does so by constructing the Bill of Rights), proposes a couple of solutions. First, Mason, on limitations on federal use of the militias posted:I conceive the General Government ought to have power over the militia, but it ought to have some bounds. If Gentlemen say, that the militia of a neighbouring State is not sufficient, the Government ought to have power to call forth those of other States, the most convenient and contiguous. But in this case the consent of the State Legislatures ought to be had. On real emergencies this consent will never be denied; each State being concerned in the safety of the rest. This power may be restricted without any danger. I wish such an amendment as this, that the militia of any State should not be marched beyond the limits of the adjoining State, and if it be necessary to draw them from one end of the Continent to the other, I wish such a check as the consent of the State Legislature, to be provided. This limitation never really comes to pass. He also noted the second major potential downfall of the militias: Mason, on protecting the militias from abolishment posted:This power is necessary, but we ought to guard against danger. If ever they attempt to harass and abuse the militia, they may easily abolish them, and raise a standing army in their stead. There are various ways of destroying the militia. A standing army may be perpetually established in their stead. I abominate and detest the idea of a Government, where there is a standing army. The militia may be here destroyed by that method which has been practised in other parts of the world before. That is, by rendering them useless, by disarming them.9 Under various pretences, Congress may neglect to provide for arming and disciplining the militia, and the State Governments cannot do it, for Congress has an exclusive right to arm them,10 &c. Here is a line of division drawn between the State and General Governments.—The power over the militia is divided between them. The national Government has an exclusive right to provide for arming, organizing, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States. The State Governments have the power of appointing the officers, and of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress, if they should think proper to prescribe any. Should the national Government wish to render the militia useless, they may neglect them, and let them perish, in order to have a pretence of establishing standing army. Basically, the other way the federal government could infringe on the proper role of the militias would be to refuse to arm the militias, weakening them and rendering them incapable of doing their duty-- and providing an excuse for creating a standing army. So he proposes that arming the militias be a concurrent power, shared by Congress and the states. Patrick Henry makes fun of this: Henry, on the pitfalls of concurrent powers posted:Let me put it in another light. May we not discipline and arm them as well as Congress, if the power be concurrent? So that our militia shall have two sets of arms, double sets of regimentals, &c. and thus, at a verygreat cost, we shall be doubly armed. The great object is, that everyman be armed. But can the people afford to pay for double sets of arms, &c? Everyone who is able may have a gun. But have we not learned by experience, that necessary as it is to have arms, and though our Assembly has, by a succession of laws for many years, endeavoured to have the militia completely armed, it is still far from being the case? When this power is given up to Congress without limitation orbounds, how will your militia be armed? You trust to chance; for sure I am, that that nation which shall trust its liberties in other hands, cannot long exist. If Gentlemen are serious when they suppose a concurrent power, where can be the impolicy to amend it? Or in otherwords, to say that Congress shall not arm or discipline them, till the States shall have refused or neglected to do it? This is my object. I only wish to bring it to what they themselves say is implied. Implication is to be the foundation of our civil liberties, and when you speak of arming the militia by a concurrence of power, you use implication. But implication will not save you, when a strong army of veterans comes upon you. Instead, he proposes another solution: Henry, on self-arming and resistance to tyranny posted:If you have given up your militia, and Congress shall refuse to arm them, you have lost every thing. Your existence will be precarious, because you depend on others, whose interests are not affected by your infelicity. If Con- gress are to arm us exclusively, the man of New-Hampshire mayvote for or against it, as well as the Virginian. The great distance and difference between the two places, render it impossible that the people of that country can know, or pursue what will promote our convenience. I therefore contend, that if Congress do not arm the militia, we ought to provide for it ourselves. So the 2nd amendment was viewed as a way of ensuring that the militias-- which everyone agreed were a better way of providing for defense and public order than a standing army-- would always be armed, and could never be disarmed to provide an excuse for a standing army. It also built upon the pre-existing right of Protestants to bear arms, established in England in 1689. Whether or not that reasoning applies in a world where standing armies are necessary and frankly the only way that any sort of defense gets done, of course, is an entire other matter. And it definitely doesn't write in any sort of "right of the people to oppose the laws by force" or whatever; Madison comes right out and states that enforcement must happen, and by force if necessary, and that rebellions should be put down. There's no two ways about that. Quorum fucked around with this message at 22:09 on Sep 17, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2016 22:07
|
|
|
lozzle posted:Mistreatment of veterans is a time-honored American tradition. Yeah if you go back and read the ratifying convention, everyone is dead terrified of veterans. People sling the word "veteran" around like it's some kind of swear word, it's hilarious.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2016 22:20
|
|
|
Cthulhumatic posted:So instead "death by nuclear fire," "death by profiteering" or "death by general idiocy but we'll probably have nice forests or some poo poo?" Not even. Feeding the developing world without the assistance of genetically modified crops such as golden rice would require massive amounts of deforestation to create new arable land. But then, Stein doesn't care about the developing world, as long as we have nice forests here.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2016 18:37
|
|
|
Business Gorillas posted:Reminder that whenever we hit arzy o'clock we have people tearing their hair out because she's going to win by 53% and not 55. Well, not a 25% approval rating, 25% of people are planning to vote for him according to that poll. If anything, these polls soundly disprove the Millennials Don't Vote Because You're Not Leftist Enough meme that was going around for a while. Maybe you'll convince them to turn out in larger quantities if you run on a "burn the system down" ticket; that seems to be the source of a lot of millennial support for Johnson and Trump in particular (that plus, in Johnson's case, 420 legalize it). But frankly anti-establishment burn it down candidates are mostly really bad and appealing to a base of people who want that is one reason the Republican Party is where it is today.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2016 18:42
|
|
|
Pakled posted:I've seen this exact same analogy applied to men, with regard to rape. Yeah, it's an old familiar meme from the troll and/or insane circles of Tumblr.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2016 02:43
|
|
|
Geoff Peterson posted:This was some of the most metal poo poo. Unless the time frame on this is way off (there was no link so I can't be sure), this would have been T-Mac, and I'm pretty certain he wasn't trying to pull some crypto-racist horseshit. So I don't know why the scare quotes around "commemorate."
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2016 17:28
|
|
|
Feral Integral posted:Yeah npr is better than most of the crap out there, but that's because its mostly crap out there. They'll never cover anything about fracking, or pipelines, I don't think they've given a hint about whats happening with the dakota pipelines. They don't seem to touch on labor issues either. What. They had the chief of the local Sioux Tribe on so he could talk about the victory they'd won when the Feds agreed to put the thing on hold, and what steps the tribe was planning on taking now.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2016 17:30
|
|
|
Geoff Peterson posted:Nah, McDonnell in 2012/2013. The scare quotes were around "loan", as there's no way in hell Virginia would ever give that flag back. Oh yeah McDonnell would probably keep it to snuggle up to at night, or hand it off to the weirdos who come to Richmond to sit in lawn chairs outside the art museum and wave the stars and bars.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2016 17:43
|
|
|
The entire government does not shut down during a shutdown. Positions and functions deemed essential continue, albeit often at reduced hours or functionality. This determination is done by OMB, I'm pretty sure, based on consultations with each agency. (Or maybe each agency picks?) Those agencies responsible for monitoring elections just get designated essential during the election, is all.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2016 23:11
|
|
|
smoke sumthin bitch posted:She may have done more good but all the bad shes done negates it and puts her deep into the hole On the other hand, you're a Trump supporter, so I think she's got you beat there too.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 23, 2016 18:17
|
|
|
Reads like the expected result of socially awkward young adults failing to communicate or read what most of us would interpret as dead obvious social cues, really. Scans with my previous encounters with the SSB "scene."
|
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2016 16:27
|
|
|
rscott posted:More from lack of opportunity really though, judging from my experience with gamer communities Bingo, most such communities are really toxic, and part of it is the predominance of socially awkward young men in particular. The tabletop gaming community, while it has been doing better in that regard, still has a serious problem as well. Same with larping, with the added complication of weirdo in-character/out-of-character mind games. (Seriously, there's a legit horrifying thread about some goon's LARPing experiences floating around in like e/n or something.)
|
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2016 16:35
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:I am blissfully unaware of any Blizzard events gone horribly wrong, although if they do in fact do a good job of things it may be for similar reasons (Blizzard-Activision not wanting terrible press). Yeah that's probably the one I'm thinking of.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2016 16:36
|
|
|
Yeah, one way feminism is planting its roots even into the FYGMiest of middle class older white women is that as the divorce rate among that population has ridden, so has a really interesting sort of female solidarity. Pretty much all of my fairly conservative mother's sanest political decisions in recent years have come after her divorce caused her to assess just how hosed women often are. (It's also the main reason she's voting Hillary, because Trump rings the same self-absorbed narcissist bells my father does, and she respects Hilldawg for being a strong woman who stood by her man even when he was a piece of poo poo and even when it meant everyone in America scorned her.)
|
|
#
¿
Sep 24, 2016 21:37
|
|
|
Hamelekim posted:Democrats were idiots for selecting her. She won't win a second term unless she causes gold to rain from the sky, and even then she would probably lose to Jeb Bush. Fortunately for democrats they are running the real Hillary Clinton, who gets good approval ratings when she's in office, and not the crude hatred golem you have constructed in your mind.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2016 23:16
|
|
|
Hamelekim posted:We will see what happens. It isn't some automatic that as President she would get good ratings and that things would go well. The Republican's could still find some way to try and screw he over in office over the whole emails thing, whether it's legitimate or not. Oh, certainly-- but at that point it comes down to how she handles herself in office. It's not some sort of automatic thing, the way her approval ratings when running for office seem to be. And Clinton in office has a lot more levers for boosting her approval ratings, such as "achieving policy successes" and "a good economy."
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2016 23:24
|
|
|
Hamelekim posted:We just need another decade or so of Democrats as President before state demographic changes mean an end to Republican rule. At that point either the Republican's will change with the times or they will die as a party. Hillary scares me because a Ted Cruz or even Trump/Pence in office with the Senate and Congress is going to turn back the clock on so much economic progress. Are you just assuming based on a gut feeling that Ted Cruz, noted eldritch slime mold, is somehow able to beat an incumbent president?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2016 23:34
|
|
|
The joy of election season is that each new week brings a fresh wave of searing hot takes from fresh political posters* to the thread. It never gets old! *transparent reregs may apply, see store for details
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2016 00:10
|
|
|
skylined! posted:What has informed your decision to arrive at the list of assumptions in the quote above? He's a pampered, incredibly privileged white programmer with zero critical thinking skills? At least that's what my assumptions based on other peoples rhetoric are. I mean, his most substantive criticism this far has been that she doesn't get technology. I know this is a pet peeve of computer janitors but you really shouldn't let it inform the way you vote!
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2016 01:33
|
|
|
Mo0 posted:As someone who lives here, that depends entirely on which corner of Virginia you're standing in. You could drive 25 miles south down I-95 with a poll-o-meter and the needle would swing 15 points to Trump. Demographic shifts in Virginia have accelerated to the point that now the urban crescent of nova, Richmond, and Hampton roads represents more than 70% of the population. Sure there's a lot of trump-voting areas beyond those regions, but it's okay because nobody lives there.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2016 15:43
|
|
|
Mo0 posted:Neat, I didn't realize that. I've always had this image of NoVA as this enclave just barely outweighing the rest of the state. Nah, add in the traditional Dem bastions of Richmond and Norfolk and they punch way above their weight class. The only problem is Democrats don't vote in off year elections, so a lot of that population advantage gets whittled away. We will see if ceasing to be a swing state this year carries through to the gubernatorial next year. I hope so.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2016 15:49
|
|
|
Crow Jane posted:Same teacher also called my mom to say I was disrupting class by saying A Separate Peace was homoerotic as hell. What, isn't that like half the point of A Separate Peace? As a teenage gay I picked up on those vibes HARD and I'm pretty sure we discussed them in class. Same with the works of Wilfred Owen, dude had a serious crush on Siegfried Sassoon that's super apparent to the reader.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2016 19:52
|
|
|
I genuinely hope the No flavor of Doritos is Soggy Cardboard.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2016 23:37
|
|
|
computer parts posted:So it wouldn't be accurate to call the US a FPTP system, since that's not what happens. The US Presidential election is not a single first-past-the-post election, it is a series of fifty-one first-past-the-post elections, each weighted according to the population of its jurisdiction run through a funky formula. There, accurate enough for you? e: well, actually like fifty-five or something if you take into account the CD votes from Maine and Nebraska
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2016 02:31
|
|
|
vyelkin posted:It's possible, but since the entire west coast tends to close and get called at the same time as soon as polls close (8 PM Pacific Time) she has to get to 270 without California, Oregon, or Washington. Which is doable but to get there she has to win two or more of the swing states leaning Trump: Arizona, Georgia, Iowa, Ohio. My dream is to turn the coasts cheery blue. And if we can't do it to SC by growing cosmopolitan urban areas (because SC has none) then we will simply have to abolish it. Hail liberal latte Satan.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2016 14:47
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/joshgerstein/status/781873655001276417 Hold on to your hats, boys and girls, it's about to get interesting.quote:Josh Gerstein
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2016 16:17
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 15:13 |
|
|
Guy Goodbody posted:Oh poo poo. Yeah, I'm frazzled, I spent all last night helping my dad deal with his motorcycle accident. White People Tears vintage 2016 is shaping up to be an even finer and more delicious vintage than 2012, and we thought that was the zenith of the art form. Oh, how innocent we were.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 30, 2016 21:14
|
|