Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Kilkrazy wrote: How do you feel that rubbing up the SJWs advances the society wide debate about free speech, abortion, equality and other such issues?
Well I think it is very simple, the S.J.W's begin bleating, the media catches on, people get interested and suddenly said topics are being discussed by more people and fresh movements are born. If anything it is speeding up the debate on such topics and making people aware of them.
...
That is an interesting point of view, and I do see some sense in it.
Having said that, a lot of people who say they voted Trump to annoy the left-wing also strongly deplore left-wing complaints, protests and so on, and want the SJWs to shut up.
From this angle, the SIW Trump voter would seem to have made a serious mistake in the polling station.
feeder wrote: My issue is she highlights the pay-to-play politics that all the true believers were endlessly banging on about during the election and now... crickets.
I'm sure Whem' will be all over this after the fuss he made over the Clinton Foundation
Sure... what are the instances showing 'pay to play'??
Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine) also criticized Sanders. “I have no doubt that you care deeply about the education of all children," she told DeVos. "Given your lifelong work and commitment to education, any suggestion, such as was made earlier, that your nomination is linked to your political contributions is really unfair and unwarranted.”
A quote from a senator who voted against DeVos.
Kind of blows your 'pay to play' narrative all to hell.
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
Kilkrazy wrote: 30-40% support roughly matches his votes as a proportion of the electorate FWIW.
Didn't he get like 48% votes though? If 30-40% americans approve his actions and 48% voted him then whole bunch of people who voted for him then don't support his orders...
Not all the electorate voted. Trump got less than half the votes of the IDK what percentage of people actually voted.
Also some of us voted for the dopehead and the crazy doctor.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
@Sebster: If you think Clinton was such a good candidate, do you think the Democrats should nominate her again in 2020 (issues of age aside)? If so, do you think she would do any better next time? If not, why not?
This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2017/02/08 12:42:57
Sentinel1 wrote: you could quite rightly argue that the S.J.W's are in fact denying democracy and free speech by bigotedly branding people who believe differently as morally wrong.
I'd rather argue that Sentinel1 would be denying free speech to the SJW if he denied them the right to say it when they believe someone is morally wrong.
Sentinel1 wrote: Everyone should be able to voice their view, I am certainly not against constructive criticism from anyone. It helps make a healthy debate, as long as what is said isn't extremist.
So you are not against free speech as long as it's not extremist speech? Me too. Now let's agree on what is extremist. I think your views are pretty extremist to be honest: you are willing to vote for Trump just to annoy people…
"Our fantasy settings are grim and dark, but that is not a reflection of who we are or how we feel the real world should be. [...] We will continue to diversify the cast of characters we portray [...] so everyone can find representation and heroes they can relate to. [...] If [you don't feel the same way], you will not be missed"
https://twitter.com/WarComTeam/status/1268665798467432449/photo/1
feeder wrote: My issue is she highlights the pay-to-play politics that all the true believers were endlessly banging on about during the election and now... crickets.
I'm sure Whem' will be all over this after the fuss he made over the Clinton Foundation
Sure... what are the instances showing 'pay to play'??
Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine) also criticized Sanders. “I have no doubt that you care deeply about the education of all children," she told DeVos. "Given your lifelong work and commitment to education, any suggestion, such as was made earlier, that your nomination is linked to your political contributions is really unfair and unwarranted.”
A quote from a senator who voted against DeVos.
Kind of blows your 'pay to play' narrative all to hell.
Huh? How does that prove anything?
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
In a little-noticed 6-3 vote today, the House Administration Committee voted along party lines to eliminate the Election Assistance Commission, which helps states run elections and is the only federal agency charged with making sure voting machines can’t be hacked. The EAC was created after the disastrous 2000 election in Florida as part of the Help America Vote Act to rectify problems like butterfly ballots and hanging chads. (Republicans have tried to kill the agency for years.) The Committee also voted to eliminate the public-financing system for presidential elections dating back to the 1970s.
“It is my firm belief that the EAC has outlived its usefulness and purpose,” said Committee chair Gregg Harper (R-MS), explaining why his bill transfers the EAC’s authority to the Federal Election Commission.
Thirty-eight pro-democracy groups, including the NAACP and Common Cause, denounced the vote. “The EAC is the only federal agency which has as its central mission the improvement of election administration, and it undertakes essential activities that no other institution is equipped to address,” says the Brennan Center for Justice.
This move is particularly worrisome given reports that suspected Russian hackers attempted to access voter-registration systems in more than 20 states during the 2016 election. Moreover, the Presidential Commission on Election Administration set up by President Obama in 2014 outlined an “impending crisis” in voting technology and the Brennan Center found that 42 states used voting machines in 2016 that were at least a decade-old and at risk of failing. The EAC was the agency tasked with making sure these voting systems were both modernized and secure.
The EAC is not a perfect agency. It lacked a quorum of members from 2010 to 2014 and was paralyzed by inaction. Then, last year, its executive director unilaterally approved controversial proof-of-citizenship laws in Kansas, Georgia, and Alabama, which the federal courts subsequently blocked.
But given the threats to American democracy at this moment, the EAC needs to be strengthened, not replaced.
It’s particularly ironic that the Trump administration is preparing to launch a massive investigation into nonexistent voter fraud based on the lie that millions voted illegally while House Republicans are shutting down the agency that is supposed to make sure America’s elections are secure. It’s more proof of how the GOP’s real agenda is to make it harder to vote.
.. that does seem odd.
Would seem a clear candidate for reform or improvement rather than just scrapping.
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
Prestor Jon wrote: That quote from Devos doesn't show that she donated money to the RNC because she expected to get a cabinet position out of it.
No, but it describes her attitude towards those donations. And if she didn't expect to get a cabinet position out of it then why did she get appointed? What are her qualifications for the job, besides donating lots of money to the republican party? Is it her valuable experience making money off a pyramid scheme? Or her desire to dismantle public education in favor of private religious schools that will teach her right-wing Christian ideology?
Everybody who donates money to politicians expects to get something out of it, either directly or indirectly. Some people donate lots of money and expect direct benefits like a Federal job, others donate small amounts and expect candidates/Parties to maintain their positions that the donor approves of.
What are Devos' qualifications? I don't know. I wouldn't have nominated her or voted to confirm her. What qualifications did she put forth during her hearings? What explanation was given by the administration and the confirming senators? I've never claimed she possessed any worthwhile qualifications but I still think you're over reacting. Trump putting a bumbling moron with a religious bent in charge is still letting the Dept of Ed get off lightly compared to the horrors that could be unleashed by other cabinet positions that will have power to really screw things up thanks to the Bush and Obama administrations.
In a little-noticed 6-3 vote today, the House Administration Committee voted along party lines to eliminate the Election Assistance Commission, which helps states run elections and is the only federal agency charged with making sure voting machines can’t be hacked. The EAC was created after the disastrous 2000 election in Florida as part of the Help America Vote Act to rectify problems like butterfly ballots and hanging chads. (Republicans have tried to kill the agency for years.) The Committee also voted to eliminate the public-financing system for presidential elections dating back to the 1970s.
“It is my firm belief that the EAC has outlived its usefulness and purpose,” said Committee chair Gregg Harper (R-MS), explaining why his bill transfers the EAC’s authority to the Federal Election Commission.
Thirty-eight pro-democracy groups, including the NAACP and Common Cause, denounced the vote. “The EAC is the only federal agency which has as its central mission the improvement of election administration, and it undertakes essential activities that no other institution is equipped to address,” says the Brennan Center for Justice.
This move is particularly worrisome given reports that suspected Russian hackers attempted to access voter-registration systems in more than 20 states during the 2016 election. Moreover, the Presidential Commission on Election Administration set up by President Obama in 2014 outlined an “impending crisis” in voting technology and the Brennan Center found that 42 states used voting machines in 2016 that were at least a decade-old and at risk of failing. The EAC was the agency tasked with making sure these voting systems were both modernized and secure.
The EAC is not a perfect agency. It lacked a quorum of members from 2010 to 2014 and was paralyzed by inaction. Then, last year, its executive director unilaterally approved controversial proof-of-citizenship laws in Kansas, Georgia, and Alabama, which the federal courts subsequently blocked.
But given the threats to American democracy at this moment, the EAC needs to be strengthened, not replaced.
It’s particularly ironic that the Trump administration is preparing to launch a massive investigation into nonexistent voter fraud based on the lie that millions voted illegally while House Republicans are shutting down the agency that is supposed to make sure America’s elections are secure. It’s more proof of how the GOP’s real agenda is to make it harder to vote.
.. that does seem odd.
Would seem a clear candidate for reform or improvement rather than just scrapping.
But of course. You can't have people voting . The republicans might lose!
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
Prestor Jon wrote: That quote from Devos doesn't show that she donated money to the RNC because she expected to get a cabinet position out of it.
No, but it describes her attitude towards those donations. And if she didn't expect to get a cabinet position out of it then why did she get appointed? What are her qualifications for the job, besides donating lots of money to the republican party? Is it her valuable experience making money off a pyramid scheme? Or her desire to dismantle public education in favor of private religious schools that will teach her right-wing Christian ideology?
Everybody who donates money to politicians expects to get something out of it, either directly or indirectly. Some people donate lots of money and expect direct benefits like a Federal job, others donate small amounts and expect candidates/Parties to maintain their positions that the donor approves of.
What are Devos' qualifications? I don't know. I wouldn't have nominated her or voted to confirm her. What qualifications did she put forth during her hearings? What explanation was given by the administration and the confirming senators? I've never claimed she possessed any worthwhile qualifications but I still think you're over reacting. Trump putting a bumbling moron with a religious bent in charge is still letting the Dept of Ed get off lightly compared to the horrors that could be unleashed by other cabinet positions that will have power to really screw things up thanks to the Bush and Obama administrations.
I feel the change that she would want to bring about would have damage that lasts longer and becomes a detriment to our children education. Which will become a circle problem that gets worse and worse. Look at the education of some of the deep red states such as Alabama or Mississippi.
Of course thats an excellent argument against the DoE. They've been in business decades and things are getting worse, not better.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/08 14:15:38
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Prestor Jon wrote: Yeah, no, you're not going to get literally hundreds of thousands of military and LEOs to join forces to conspire to ditch the constitution for the sake of making Trump dictator of America.
Why makes America immune to that when that hasn't worked elsewhere?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote: I'm sure it was the Founders idea to just assume everything would be cool and let stuff slide instead of being vigilant about government. There seems to be a strange thing going on where the people who used to argue how awful government is and that we need to be on guard for abuse went and voted for people who can't be trusted and then try to tell others that we should trust the system to keep everything in place. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.
Ah but it's because now people in power are R's. You only need to be on guard for abuse when it's D's in power!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just Tony wrote: Do you think the military would then follow an unlawful order given by his meat puppet, or steadfastly refuse, assisting in the removal of said President AND whatever high ranking official took his side.
Has happened before in the history. So since we know it's possible what makes US immune to it? Oath to constitution? Not enough. History shows it. Give better reason.
Show me an analogous example to the US where a country the size of a continent with a populations in the hundreds of millions and fraught with regional political differences managed to get elements of the govt, military and LEOs numbering in the thousands from across the country to join together to overthrow the established social order and system of government. Do you understand how hard it would be to get all those different people to decide to deliberately destroy the status quo in the name of a revolution focused solely on giving Trump absolute power? What makes you think Trump even has that kind of support in the first place? You're not going to see different leadership in the different service branches all unite in the idea that they need to destroy the country they have sworn to defend and dedicated their lives to preserve for the sake of Donald Trump.
People need to be constantly vigilant when it comes to government oversight. Administrations change but policies and programs tend to continue right along, whether they are good or bad.
Prestor Jon wrote: Yeah, no, you're not going to get literally hundreds of thousands of military and LEOs to join forces to conspire to ditch the constitution for the sake of making Trump dictator of America.
Why makes America immune to that when that hasn't worked elsewhere?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote: I'm sure it was the Founders idea to just assume everything would be cool and let stuff slide instead of being vigilant about government. There seems to be a strange thing going on where the people who used to argue how awful government is and that we need to be on guard for abuse went and voted for people who can't be trusted and then try to tell others that we should trust the system to keep everything in place. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.
Ah but it's because now people in power are R's. You only need to be on guard for abuse when it's D's in power!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just Tony wrote: Do you think the military would then follow an unlawful order given by his meat puppet, or steadfastly refuse, assisting in the removal of said President AND whatever high ranking official took his side.
Has happened before in the history. So since we know it's possible what makes US immune to it? Oath to constitution? Not enough. History shows it. Give better reason.
Show me an analogous example to the US where a country the size of a continent with a populations in the hundreds of millions and fraught with regional political differences managed to get elements of the govt, military and LEOs numbering in the thousands from across the country to join together to overthrow the established social order and system of government. Do you understand how hard it would be to get all those different people to decide to deliberately destroy the status quo in the name of a revolution focused solely on giving Trump absolute power? What makes you think Trump even has that kind of support in the first place? You're not going to see different leadership in the different service branches all unite in the idea that they need to destroy the country they have sworn to defend and dedicated their lives to preserve for the sake of Donald Trump.
People need to be constantly vigilant when it comes to government oversight. Administrations change but policies and programs tend to continue right along, whether they are good or bad.
1917 comes to mind. Also 1949.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Prestor Jon wrote: That quote from Devos doesn't show that she donated money to the RNC because she expected to get a cabinet position out of it.
No, but it describes her attitude towards those donations. And if she didn't expect to get a cabinet position out of it then why did she get appointed? What are her qualifications for the job, besides donating lots of money to the republican party? Is it her valuable experience making money off a pyramid scheme? Or her desire to dismantle public education in favor of private religious schools that will teach her right-wing Christian ideology?
Everybody who donates money to politicians expects to get something out of it, either directly or indirectly. Some people donate lots of money and expect direct benefits like a Federal job, others donate small amounts and expect candidates/Parties to maintain their positions that the donor approves of.
What are Devos' qualifications? I don't know. I wouldn't have nominated her or voted to confirm her. What qualifications did she put forth during her hearings? What explanation was given by the administration and the confirming senators? I've never claimed she possessed any worthwhile qualifications but I still think you're over reacting. Trump putting a bumbling moron with a religious bent in charge is still letting the Dept of Ed get off lightly compared to the horrors that could be unleashed by other cabinet positions that will have power to really screw things up thanks to the Bush and Obama administrations.
I feel the change that she would want to bring about would have damage that lasts longer and becomes a detriment to our children education. Which will become a circle problem that gets worse and worse. Look at the education of some of the deep red states such as Alabama or Mississippi.
She doesn't have the power to make those changes, no Ed Sec does. The 8% of school budgets that come from Federal funds and are administered by the Dept of Ed are controlled by Federal programs established in Federal laws. You're over estimating the ability of a Sec of Ed to affect real change to public education.
Prestor Jon wrote: Yeah, no, you're not going to get literally hundreds of thousands of military and LEOs to join forces to conspire to ditch the constitution for the sake of making Trump dictator of America.
Why makes America immune to that when that hasn't worked elsewhere?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote: I'm sure it was the Founders idea to just assume everything would be cool and let stuff slide instead of being vigilant about government. There seems to be a strange thing going on where the people who used to argue how awful government is and that we need to be on guard for abuse went and voted for people who can't be trusted and then try to tell others that we should trust the system to keep everything in place. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills.
Ah but it's because now people in power are R's. You only need to be on guard for abuse when it's D's in power!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just Tony wrote: Do you think the military would then follow an unlawful order given by his meat puppet, or steadfastly refuse, assisting in the removal of said President AND whatever high ranking official took his side.
Has happened before in the history. So since we know it's possible what makes US immune to it? Oath to constitution? Not enough. History shows it. Give better reason.
Show me an analogous example to the US where a country the size of a continent with a populations in the hundreds of millions and fraught with regional political differences managed to get elements of the govt, military and LEOs numbering in the thousands from across the country to join together to overthrow the established social order and system of government. Do you understand how hard it would be to get all those different people to decide to deliberately destroy the status quo in the name of a revolution focused solely on giving Trump absolute power? What makes you think Trump even has that kind of support in the first place? You're not going to see different leadership in the different service branches all unite in the idea that they need to destroy the country they have sworn to defend and dedicated their lives to preserve for the sake of Donald Trump.
People need to be constantly vigilant when it comes to government oversight. Administrations change but policies and programs tend to continue right along, whether they are good or bad.
1917 comes to mind. Also 1949.
Do you mean Russia? I would dispute that similarity there because there is no group of self identifying ethnic "Americans" like there are "Russians" who set themselves apart from Ukranians, Georgians, Albanians, Lithuanians, etc. Very different societal fault lines to fracture along then in the current US.
feeder wrote: My issue is she highlights the pay-to-play politics that all the true believers were endlessly banging on about during the election and now... crickets.
I'm sure Whem' will be all over this after the fuss he made over the Clinton Foundation
Sure... what are the instances showing 'pay to play'??
Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine) also criticized Sanders. “I have no doubt that you care deeply about the education of all children," she told DeVos. "Given your lifelong work and commitment to education, any suggestion, such as was made earlier, that your nomination is linked to your political contributions is really unfair and unwarranted.”
A quote from a senator who voted against DeVos.
Kind of blows your 'pay to play' narrative all to hell.
Huh? How does that prove anything?
It doesn't prove anything, but neither did the rest of the article prove she was involved in pay for play. When even her critics find the idea without merit, well, perhaps it is because there is no merit to the idea...
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
Japan’s government is pushing companies and investors to hand over details of their US investment plans so Shinzo Abe can deliver a “tweetable” figure to Donald Trump when they meet this week
...future sure ain't what it used to be eh ?
Foreign policy being partially shaped by whether the US President is likely to tweet about it
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/08 14:24:01
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
lonestarr777 wrote: Devos appointment is quite brilliant actually. The R's love an uneducated voter and when Devos is done their all but garaunteed a bumper crop.
Seems the Dept of Education has been under D control for a while, as are the public worker unions (to include teacher unions), and our students-to-be-voters are not doing all that well anyway.
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
lonestarr777 wrote: Devos appointment is quite brilliant actually. The R's love an uneducated voter and when Devos is done their all but garaunteed a bumper crop.
Seems the Dept of Education has been under D control for a while, as are the public worker unions (to include teacher unions), and our students-to-be-voters are not doing all that well anyway.
Exactly. Look at the cluster that was Common Core. Great idea that could have been done on the back of napkin turned into a bureaucratic political nightmare.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
feth me I just burst out laughing, almost woke the baby.
We just went through a whole fething year of the right wing saying any money in to the Clinton Foundation was proof of something or other, and the left talking about how what you needed was an actual quid pro quo, otherwise you ain't got gak. Now there's a Republican in charge and oh my god holy gak will you look at that the right has adopted a very narrow definition of acceptable favours for cash. Who could have seen that coming?
Anyhow, moving past the Clinton Foundation conspiracy nonsense, and to Obama's actual appointments, Obama did reward significant contributors to his campaign with political appointments. I don't know if he appointed anyone who directly paid in big money, but there was more than a few who ran large donation lobbying efforts who were given diplomatic posts. That was gak, to put it bluntly. It is not good enough whenever someone closely connected to the money trough is moved in to a government position, it is far too open to corruption.
Trump has gone well past Obama's appointments. He is appointing someone that didn't just lobby for him, but directly paid in, and not to some backwater diplomatic posting, he's giving them a cabinet position.
And all the people who cheered him on for saying he'll drain the swamp seem rather okay with this.
Who is "the right" that's adopting a position on what "quid pro quo" means in politics? That's already been settled by SCOTUS.
Political contributions and free speech have been hot button issues that have been ruled on by the Roberts court a few times now. With the Clinton foundation you have Obama setting rules for what Hillary and the foundation can do in terms of accepting donations in order to avoid conflicts of interest and the appearance of impropriety. In regards to donating money to politicians and Parties we have established case law on what is and isn't allowed. Both whembly and myself have posted consistently and repeatedly that we don't like the SCOTUS decisions in McCutcheon and Citizens United and that there is too much private money/special interests influencing politics.
Kilkrazy wrote: How do you feel that rubbing up the SJWs advances the society wide debate about free speech, abortion, equality and other such issues?
Well I think it is very simple, the S.J.W's begin bleating, the media catches on, people get interested and suddenly said topics are being discussed by more people and fresh movements are born. If anything it is speeding up the debate on such topics and making people aware of them.
...
That is an interesting point of view, and I do see some sense in it.
Having said that, a lot of people who say they voted Trump to annoy the left-wing also strongly deplore left-wing complaints, protests and so on, and want the SJWs to shut up.
From this angle, the SIW Trump voter would seem to have made a serious mistake in the polling station.
Leaving the SJW stuff aside, the media is much more about following along with a given narrative then it is about researching actual truths and reporting accurate stories.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/02/08 14:43:03
Prestor Jon wrote: Leaving the SJW stuff aside, the media is much more about following along with a given narrative then it is about researching actual truths and reporting accurate stories.
Spoiler:
"Oh no, they used the word Chaos a lot! It must mean that they aren't reporting accurately!"
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
lonestarr777 wrote: Devos appointment is quite brilliant actually. The R's love an uneducated voter and when Devos is done their all but garaunteed a bumper crop.
Seems the Dept of Education has been under D control for a while, as are the public worker unions (to include teacher unions), and our students-to-be-voters are not doing all that well anyway.
Exactly. Look at the cluster that was Common Core. Great idea that could have been done on the back of napkin turned into a bureaucratic political nightmare.
Hrm, lets also be fair here, that was an ostensibly non-partisan thing that got taken by some elements on the right to some...very strange places, with more than a wee bit of misrepresentation on many counts, that in many ways was never a fair shake. I have no idea if it would have been better than what we had going before or worse, I'm not an educator, but the loony-bin stuff and outright complete fabrications and misrepresentations around Common Core was...well, would have been amusing had such things not been so forcefully believed by some.
EDIT: also, yeah, lets not bring Scott Adams into this as proof of anything, the guy's turned into something of a nutjob after he got caught out forum trolling in his own defense under assumed aliases, and stated he believed not endorsing Hillary would be an actual safety issue for him.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/02/08 14:56:58
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
Prestor Jon wrote: Leaving the SJW stuff aside, the media is much more about following along with a given narrative then it is about researching actual truths and reporting accurate stories.
Spoiler:
"Oh no, they used the word Chaos a lot! It must mean that they aren't reporting accurately!"
Repeating a story is not the same as verifying a story. Do you want "news" agencies to just play a game of follow the leader and regurgitate whatever story is given to them or do you want them to try to find out what is actually going on?
lonestarr777 wrote: Devos appointment is quite brilliant actually. The R's love an uneducated voter and when Devos is done their all but garaunteed a bumper crop.
Seems the Dept of Education has been under D control for a while, as are the public worker unions (to include teacher unions), and our students-to-be-voters are not doing all that well anyway.
Exactly. Look at the cluster that was Common Core. Great idea that could have been done on the back of napkin turned into a bureaucratic political nightmare.
Hrm, lets also be fair here, that was an ostensibly non-partisan thing that got taken by some elements on the right to some...very strange places, with more than a wee bit of misrepresentation on many counts, that in many ways was never a fair shake. I have no idea if it would have been better than what we had going before or worse, I'm not an educator, but the loony-bin stuff and outright complete fabrications and misrepresentations around Common Core was...well, would have been amusing had such things not been so forcefully believed by some.
EDIT: also, yeah, lets not bring Scott Adams into this as proof of anything, the guy's turned into something of a nutjob after he got caught out forum trolling in his own defense under assumed aliases, and stated he believed not endorsing Hillary would be an actual safety issue for him.
