:tu:!
Printable View
:tu:!
You don't know anything, wealth is gonna be trickling down any day now.Quote:
Originally Posted by A Robot Bit Me
like crumbs off the aristocracy's table.
The idea of trickle down economics is the same fallacy as the communist idea of shared prosperity. "Don't worry, you'll get your share." :lol:
I believe there was a study that discussed the link between psychopathy and our business leaders, something like 4% meet the criteria. And these are the same people influencing our politicians and government policies. Fucking. Scary.
Yes, and corporations by default operate like psychopaths. They do not operate with the same outlook as a SP or LLC
http://www.the-nextlevel.com/tnl/att...1&d=1455387656Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew
It's like you're on the same planet but in another slightly different reality and I can't follow your logic at all.
Trump is clowning Jeb and Ted
Your image is showing as broken (browser and Tapatalk) so if I'm not addressing some point therein, that's why.Quote:
Originally Posted by Timber
ARBM makes a good point about how unions have dwindled in recent times. I don't buy that it was solely a greed motive from crony capitalists that caused it, although one must concede it is a factor. On the flip side of the coin, unions forgot that the first rule of the host/parasite relationship is that you shouldn't kill the host. A lot of flight overseas and to right-to-work states was an effort to staunch the bleeding. And some of it was greed. Don't get me wrong, I'm strongly pro-union. But I'm also a realist.
All that having been said, unions still have major pull in America. 7% of our productive economy (is it really that low?) is a massive force. St. Bernie of Vermont can keep trumpeting the "no super-PAC support" line all the way to the convention, but it's a dishonest splitting of hairs, as Dr. Dean pointed out.
meh. unions are like people. None of them are the same and it is hard to generalize.
The one at my workplace is retarded and props up people that can't pore piss out of a boot. Same industry, same product, other facility? Sometimes completely different.
I wish they were more regulated, much like businesses. They should never be allowed to strangle a business out.
So Donald Trump criticized the Iraq War, blamed Bush for 9/11, and praised Planned Parenthood. At a Republican debate. In South Carolina.
I think I'm in love.
The reason why Donald Trump is popular now is because his policies are much more in line with the populace than the establishment right.
For example - Americans like Social Security. They rely on it. It's a tremendously popular program. And the people who want to cut this popular program are confused as to why the guy who says it should be strengthened is more popular. That's because cutting Social Security is only popular amongst very rich people and that's who everyone else takes their marching orders from.
He has also called Mexican immigrants druggies, criminals and rapists and that Muslims should be banned from entering the US.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew
So fuck you for being a piece of shit as well.
Way to derail an adult conversation with personal attacks. Good for you!Quote:
Originally Posted by bbobb
Incorrect. He said Mexico is sending over criminals and rapists, and with the corruption of the Mexican government, that is a factual statement. However, the numbers are insignificant compared to the number of criminals and rapists coming out of our own domestic African American population. And he also made a tweet about that with numbers exaggerated. I have no idea why he feels the need to exaggerate facts, but supposedly it's a negotiating tactic. And that could be why bbobb is doing the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by bbobb
Surprisingly, bbobb is correct on this. And it is the point when I checked out on Trump. You need to encourage Muslims to embrace western morals and condem radical Islam. Banning all of them, blaming all of them only breeds more hate which is what IS et al. wants. So his speech was both anti-American in nature and inciting more hate and violence which is not a solution. It's the opposite of that.Quote:
Originally Posted by bbobb
I don't think it's a dishonest splitting of hairs. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...race.html?_r=0Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew
The trademark Portland Pacification mustn't have kicked in yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew
If the political spending of 7% of private workers is a "massive force," what would you call the owning class that employs the remaining 93%?
Sir.
I'm not concerned with the owning class. I'm more concerned with the working class. And I would imagine their political dealings are situational, depending on their needs. Do you think voting Democratic is in their best interests? Because if so, the party has done them a great disservice with these candidates.Quote:
Originally Posted by A Robot Bit Me
If we're still talking about political spending and influence, I'm not sure how to respond to "I'm not concerned with the owning class."
I lol'd.Quote:
Originally Posted by Some Stupid Japanese Name
He said that Muslims should be banned for a limited time until we can identify and screen them properly.Quote:
Originally Posted by bbobb
Look at what is happening in Germany, Sweden, etc. They let in all these people and they have no idea who they are. Many of them turn out not to be from war zones in Syria or Afghanistan and are not refugees. The people have forged documents, come there and commit crimes, molest women, etc. They have no respect for women or Western norms. The governments have lost track of people, including tons of children who they now think are being sex trafficked. It's a fucking disaster.
I'm all about helping people in need but by letting in all these people without a clue these countries are failing their citizens and are not doing due diligence to keep them safe. Even worse some of these places have tried to bury news about this stuff for fear it hurts the policy or helps the right wing politicians. Unbelievable shit.
I think Canada and the US have done a better job but I see no evidence we can take in tens or hundreds of thousands of refugees while also doing it properly.
STOP BEING RACIST CIS SCUM! REEEEEEEEE!!!!!
http://bigthink.com/strange-maps/mapping-xenophobia
I think Diff/Trump have a valid point, but stirring up fear-based reactionism amongst the populace is not the way to handle it. Alleged events now eclipse actual ones being discussed regarding this, and fearmongering dumbassness will always move faster than fact-based inference. Europe now seems pretty well on track to handling this situation the tried and true way they always have as a result: rounding people up and putting them in camps.
They should probably round them up and deport them. If they own property, refund them the real cost.*
*If there really is a problem. And they haven't become legal citizens
This is Europe mind you. Not the US. One country doesn't have the right just move into another.
Besides, it would probably be for the best. Europe doesn't have the best history with sizable minority populations living inside a large homogeneous population.
You say that as though we do... :confused:
Yea, actually we have done a very good job of integrating immigrants into mainstream society.
Some of them we even gave a free boat ride to get here! And then there are the ones that never have trouble getting a table at a nice restaurant... y'know, 'cuz we made sure they've always got a reservation? Eh? Eh?
Sure, they've (arguably) integrated into mainstream society today, but it took generations of pain and the playing field still isn't really level.
I'm talking about immigrants. Dearborn MI for example has a ton of Muslims, compare it to Belgium or France where they just throw them in a ghetto. Indians, etc.
I know you were, but IP wasn't in the comment I was responding to. He was alluding to the Holocaust, and I was pointing out that we had very similar blots on our history.
Muslims comprise a significant percentage of the Quarantines Facebook fanbase.Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc Holliday
At least, they got the right side of Zombie culture down.
Anyone want to talk about the Scalia thing or anything else politically related in here?
Anyway, this is an awesome troll. :tu:
Waste of time, something I've only come to expect from Republicans. Poor form.
I find it sad and baffing that the 2016 election might come down to Trump versus Sanders, both of whom are basically outsiders to their respective parties, yet Americans still can't get behind the idea of a third party. Even Gary Johnson would be a more sensible choice than those two kooks.
She's doing it to make a point and show the hypocrisy of Republicans. Sanders said it best in the last debate. Republicans bitch about government control on public matters yet love government control when it comes to telling women what to do with their own bodies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joust Williams
To be fair, that's a pretty low bar.Quote:
Originally Posted by kedawa
Yes, that's clearly a party-specific characteristic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Type Ryan
edit: Did that same debate feature Hillary opposing Wall Street?
Also, only 58% of Democrats are pro-choice as of 2012. The fact that TNL is a liberal wonderland doesn't change what reality looks like.
Oh, Bernie has already made "artful smears" regarding Hillary's hypocritical stance on Wall Street.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
Not sure I follow. This stat says to me that a majority agree with the right to choose. Personally, I'm pro-life. That's my belief, but I also believe in someone's right to choose for themselves what they feel is right. That's why I vote pro-choice: personal freedom.Quote:
Also, only 58% of Democrats are pro-choice as of 2012. The fact that TNL is a liberal wonderland doesn't change what reality looks like.
Barely a majority. That was my point. I think a lot of people on TNL think they're a lot more mainstream than they really are.
I think it's more about telling women what to do with the bodies of their unborn children, but the criticism is still valid. A better example would be their attitudes toward recreational drug use and assisted suicide. It's hypocritical to tell people that their health is their own concern, but support laws that place restrictions on what they do with their own bodies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Type Ryan
I get it but don't stoop to their level is all. Let's dispel the notion that Republican Congresspeople don't know what they are doing, they know exactly what they are doing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Type Ryan
That's another valid point. The fact that our government demonizes drug use yet allows Big Pharma to not only rob us, but also push narcotics is hypocritical. And I also believe in the right to die with dignity. I'll admit I've only recently begun to change my stance on this since I have a very critical stance on suicides. The biggest factor for me is that in this book I've been reading, dying with dignity doesn't carry the same stigma in the afterlife as someone offing themselves because they weren't rich, or pretty, etc. Imo, so long as someone isn't directly harming me or the general public, what they do in their own personal lives is not the government's concern.Quote:
Originally Posted by kedawa
Oh look, the abortion discussion is starting.
Better get used to it. If memory serves, I believe it will be one of the topics discussed by the SCOTUS this year, which makes the new Scalia replacement such a big deal.
Who cares? Wasn't the issue solved 40 years ago? About the same support gay marriage, and the SCOTUS upheld that too. Why waste time over shit that's been resolved?Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
Because societies change. Unless you think black people shouldn't be considered citizens or have legal recourse because Dredd Scott "resolved" the issue?
Dred Scott was a problem within a larger issue that was eventually solved through constitutional amendment, and I don't hear anyone talking about reversing the abolition of slavery. RvW wasn't part of a larger wrong that hasn't been solved. A portion of the country simply doesn't agree with the decision; that's it. It's the same with gay marriage.
Supreme Court rulings have nothing to do with what the majority wants. If they did, RvW would be gone; the majority of the country has been pro-life at multiple points since RvW.
Judgement Dredd is not to be questioned.Quote:
Originally Posted by A Robot Bit Me
Bringing the Scalia discussion into the thread where it probably belongs, here's one for ARBM:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnpjs45D7OY
And let's not forget that Obama himself both filibustered and then voted against Alito's nomination.
Explain to me how that's different than Super PACs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Melf
That's kind of my point. SC rulings solve the issue, unless the problem was a symptom of a larger issue that remained unsolved (your Dred Scott example). RvW solved abortion, so what the majority wants at multiple points doesn't really matter unless it's consistent enough for a constitutional amendment (which will never happen for abortion or gay marriage).Quote:
Originally Posted by A Robot Bit Me
I thought we were talking about abortion? For Super PACs, I absolutely think a constitutional amendment is needed to get money out of politics. Campaign finance reform laws have not solved the overall issue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
Wasn't Scalia an election-year nomination?
Melf, what about the Hobby Lobby ruling? Is that resolved or part of a larger issue? Super PAC supporters see their cause as part of a larger issue too: constitutionally guaranteed freedom of speech.
I'm with you on Super PACs and RvW, but can you see how what we call "part of a larger issue" is really just the label we all give to "a decision I disagree with?"
Hey, I googled it.Quote:
Originally Posted by YellerDog
Scalia started in Sept 1986.
Senate elections were held in Nov 1986 and Dems won control.
Obama should put up a neo-liberal judge. That way the Senate Republicans can be seen for the partisan fuckwits they are.
As opposed to Charles Schumer and Obama himself.
I saw what might be the first intelligent thing ever said on MSNBC last night: Television started partisan politics.
Social media has exacerbated the shit out of it.
The Hobby Lobby ruling doesn't affect the overall constitutional issue of choice, only who pays for contraceptives, right? So I don't think it affects the larger issue of abortion the way Dred Scott did with slavery. It does so, I think, in regards to religious freedom.Quote:
Originally Posted by A Robot Bit Me
I guess you could see it as a label, though. I do think there's a lot more to say about what the abolition of slavery did for equality than allowing rich people to throw gobs of cash to express their "free speech," which is why there's rumblings for an amendment. But if it isn't a consistent majority, than we're stuck with the same problem there is with anti-abortion situation.
Yeah, Tories and Whigs were bros before @therealwilliampitt started retweeting incendiary memes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
Please.
No one cares about England.
Was this was the result of Galusha Grow's controversial appearance on Hardball, then?
It's worse now than in recent memory, but to say "television started partisan politics" is pretty silly.
It depends how you define "partisan politics" I guess. Disagreeing on issues has existed as long as verbal communication, but obstructionism for the sake of it hasn't.
Well, party lines were normally wealth lines and one side fought vigentally to defend the wealth of their region.
Now it's about bamboozing the common man out of a vote.
So maybe it started with muggels deciding ellections.
Jesus cheeks spell check.
No. FREEDOM!
I like Jesus Cheeks.
MSNBC's comment is an ignorant one. "Mudslinging" has been around for a loooong time, well before television.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
I'd say our leaders acting more like high school students has exacerbated it. For all intents and purposes, we as a society should look to our leaders as examples of how to conduct ourselves in a positive way. Unfortunately, based on that measure, we're all just passengers on that Jackass ship at the end of Pinocchio.Quote:
Social media has exacerbated the shit out of it.
You don't say?
Attachment 78366
Dyaaaaaam.
The difference is that Republicans today are talking about preventing a vote from even hitting the floor. That's a lot different than an appointment not getting the majority of votes, which is what happened in '88.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
If a Senator wants to vote No like so many Democrats did on Bork, cool. Plenty did vote no on Kagan and Sotomayor and that's fine. But vote. That's the job we sent them to do.
It's not all Republicans, it's just the crazies like Ted Cruz that want the government to burn down and just become a bunch of policeman preventing woman from having abortions and incarcerating minorities.
Right, which is why said crazies don't want to risk a vote not going their way, so they're blocking the vote altogether. Because they love democracy so much, you see.
I don't understand anyone who claims to love democracy. I much prefer living in our current republic.
I wonder if anyone can pull off that whole 'but actually, it's a republic' line without coming off as a lame dick. Haven't seen it happen yet.
You think I'm a dick? :(Quote:
Originally Posted by YellerDog
lol.Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh
You watched the Schumer video I posted, right? And know that Obama himself filibustered to prevent such a vote?Quote:
Originally Posted by A Robot Bit Me
Alito didn't have a vote? Interesting.
I'm listening to a TAL from a few weeks ago. It's about a Southern talk show host who backed Cruz and is stunned that his listeners support Trump. Pretty interesting stuff!
No, Obama did not filibuster Alito because there was no Alito filibuster. You look like a man who is a silly man.Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
Alito was appointed and confirmed by the Senate within a few months. And there could have been a filibuster: he was two votes shy of a filibuster proof super majority.
Obama and Schumer voted in favor of a movement within the Democratic party to try gain support for a filibuster in the event of a less than super majority vote, but that movement died within their own party.
And even if that movement was supported, filibustering if a guy gets fewer than 60 votes is not even close to the same thing as blocking a vote from even taking place. For a year.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew
No, but it's certainly an eye-rolling line of conversation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Andrew
Bork isn't a good example for Repubs to use. Six of them voted against him because he was a blatant racist. Fuck, even Strom Thurmond thought he was too controversial. Strom fucking Thurmond. And for all that sound and fury, there was still a vote, and a nominee was eventually confirmed UNANIMOUSLY by the Dem.-led Senate (a little detail that somehow never gets mentioned). That's nothing like the BS the Senate is pulling now.Quote:
Originally Posted by A Robot Bit Me
The fact that he and his cohorts were too incompetent to execute it doesn't change his intent. I'm including his full quote for added hilarity:Quote:
Originally Posted by A Robot Bit Me
Also, Schumer's intent was pretty clear, was it not? It had nothing to do with the number of votes specifically for Alito.Quote:
Originally Posted by Senator Obama
Yes, it does have to do with votes for Alito because Schumer never intended to prevent a vote for Alito from happening.
Again, the intent to filibuster if a super majority can't be reached is different from intent to block a vote from happening at all. If Cruz and the rest of the clown caucus want to invoke cloture and filibuster if an appointment gets 59 votes like Obama and Schumer wanted their party to do, go sick; that doesn't bother me. But preventing a vote does.
Can you not see the difference between voting "No" like the Dems did on Bork and preventing a vote from happening at all?
Also, note how Schumer's statement objects to Alito specifically and not to anyone the president might maybe be thinking of appointing ever before he even does it. That's a big difference, too.
No, since the end result is exactly the same. In fact, the only reason a super majority even matters is to break the filibuster, so explain to me how that's a different intent than blocking a vote?Quote:
Originally Posted by A Robot Bit Me
Are you confusing Schumer and Obama? Schumer's statement was in no way specific to Alito.Quote:
Also, note how Schumer's statement objects to Alito specifically and not to anyone the president might maybe be thinking of appointing ever before he even does it. That's a big difference, too.
The potential for a nominee to have 60 votes waiting for him is what makes it different. A block would prevent someone with a potential filibuster proof vote from being nominated.
And yes I did get them confused--I thought that quote you posted was Schumer's.
I'm still missing something in your argument. Are you talking about the nominee never making it out of committee?
I'm talking about (or rather, they're talking about) halting the process between the Judiciary Committee's vote and the Senate confirmation vote until Obama is out of office. Here's the douche Command List taken from here:
These are what McConnell, Cruz, and Grassley are talking about when they talk about blocking a vote. I have a problem with these. These are not what the Democrats did in '88. These are not what Schumer and Obama were talking about in 2005.Quote:
[Republicans] can refuse to hold hearings, refuse to report nominations out of committee, refuse to proceed to the executive nominations calendar, [or] refuse to proceed to the nomination itself.
The remaining options--voting to reject a candidate or filibustering a simple majority vote (what Obama and Schumer wanted to do)--are worlds away from the above options because they allow a vote. I have no problems with these remaining options because inherent to the vote is the possibility of a filibuster-proof vote.
Obama needs to nominate Dredd, but he ain't got the sand.
Thank you for clarifying, though I still disagree that not letting it out of committee is any different than filibustering a vote, especially in this case, when there is absolutely zero chance of a filibuster-proof vote.Quote:
Originally Posted by A Robot Bit Me
I think there is a chance of 14 Republicans voting in favor, which is all that's needed. Many have expressed their eagerness to get on with it.
The Republicans do a lot better job getting in line than the Democrats do. Unless some of them think there's a direct threat to their seat, I highly doubt there will be much dissent. 14 has to be almost as many as are even up for re-election, and some of them have to be completely safe.
The claim to obstruct any nominee is backfiring pretty bad right now. The talking heads (and by extension The People) are giving them a shit ton of flak.
That's the talking heads' plan. Do you recall the same amount of air time in 2007? I sure as hell don't.
That said, "The People" cannot be measured by some internet echo chamber either.
The 2 aren't correlative. This is a different climate.
OK. But they wouldn't be talking about and devising ways of blocking the vote if they didn't think there was a chance a vote wouldn't go their way. If there's "absolutely zero chance" of a filibuster-proof Senate vote, great, vote away, right? What's the harm?Quote:
Originally Posted by Yoshi
Also, lol at Republicans uniting. There is so much divisiveness in the Republican party right now it's hilarious.
It's really easy to unite if there's such a hivemind. Any divisiveness comes more or less because the reasonable ones are totally embarrassed by what the party has become.
I'm not saying the Democratic debates are gold, but put them next to the Republican ones. Surely some Congresspeople are like 'the hell is this shit'