Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Kasandra

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 36
51
General Comments / Re: Who will be next to speak out about Trump?
« on: July 02, 2020, 08:57:39 AM »
The discussion is no longer about what is wrong with Trump.  We all know his very public record.  The question is becoming more and more what is wrong with those who support him.  It's not good enough to say he's a despicable person, but Democrats are worse, so I'll vote for him over pretty much any Democrat in the upcoming election.  If Trump is "the lesser of two evils" show the evils of picking Joe Biden that outweigh Trump's horrendous failings.

52
General Comments / Re: Who will be next to speak out about Trump?
« on: July 01, 2020, 11:14:12 PM »
I can understand (barely) that someone can prefer Trump on the basis of his policies and stances on specific issues, but it boggles the mind that anyone would prefer him over any other possible candidate to sit in the Oval Office.  Except for a few twisted souls who think he never lies, is lovable and honest, almost everyone who has known him and spoken publicly about him has or can attest to his almost subhuman lack of character.  200 officials who served in the George Bush Administration just announced that they have formed the second PAC for the express purpose of helping Joe Biden, whose policies they mostly disagree with, beat Trump in the election.

53
Trump, speaking today:
Quote
I think we're going to be very good with the coronavirus. I think that at some point that's going to sort of just disappear

Oh for Heaven's sake  ::)

This is why Biden can afford to "stay in his basement" :).  Eventually Trump is going to realize that he's used up all his matches and still can't start a fire.  He'll have two choices when that time comes, either declare martial law or quit.  I think quitting isn't far-fetched, in which case I hope he waits until the week before the election.  They'll have to make him empty his pockets on the way out the door.  Trump Istanbul?

54
General Comments / Re: Who will be next to speak out about Trump?
« on: July 01, 2020, 04:43:21 PM »
Un*censored*ingcredible :(

55
I shortened your name from Kasandra to Kas (first time ever), and you drop the D from DonaldD while complaining about it?

Inadvertent on my part, and apparently not a concern to him.

I agree I can make an argument.  I think you can't.  You're not changing minds with the endless dodging.

Agree with who?  A little sleight of hand, eh?  Nobody said you can; in fact, that's why popcorn sales suddenly went up.

56
Kas, rather I'm taking the opportunity to demonstrate that you and DonaldD are seemingly not capable of making the arguments you advocate.  Come on, surely it can't be that hard to demonstrate that you thought before you posted?

Get it right on my name, else I'll try out some I've thought of for you.  Keep shuckin' and jivin' instead of rising to Donald's challenge.  You're the lead parlor lawyer here for the right, so this should be a piece of chiffon cake for you.  But since so far nobody has seen you do what he asked, I doubt many people here think you can.

57
This is why Trump is going down in November.  First he said he didn't know about the Russia bounties on US troops even though it was in his daily briefing book which he says he reads, then his Administration briefed Congress about it and Kayleigh McEnany says he's the most informed person in the world, and now he says it never happened, IT'S ANOTHER HOAX!

Quote
The Russia Bounty story is just another made up by Fake News tale that is told only to damage me and the Republican Party. The secret source probably does not even exist, just like the story itself. If the discredited @nytimes has a source, reveal it. Just another HOAX!

I know they like to use this line in movies, but you can't make this stuff up.

Calling the Ornery Trump defense team!  'Splain us what's going on!!!!

58
Here's a challenge - prove yourself not to be blindly partisan and show us a bunch of examples where Republicans were unwilling to make compromises.

Lol, answer a challenge with a challenge?  Admitting you can't answer the call?

You're really missing an opportunity here to take the high road and show how superior Republicans are by their very nature.

59
I have no doubt it's true, and that somebody in the communication team thought it was a good idea... until it became really obvious that it wasn't.

It's my understanding that the 4 monument faces will be wearing masks.  They may not need them, but What do they have to lose?

60
General Comments / Re: Who will be next to speak out about Trump?
« on: June 30, 2020, 04:27:41 PM »
Quote
Even better, I found you a United States Senator, who is a Democrat, speaking on CNN about how the 25th Amendment should be invoked if certain claims are true.

You are aware she is referencing WH officials who apparently were talking about invoking the 25th Amendment to remove Trump from office.  She didn't come up with this because of her own objection to something he did.  So your big reveal is that senior officials in the WH were thinking about it, and that's why she raised it on air.  Maybe you should find out who they were and you should go after them.

Quote
"If senior administration officials think the President of the United States is not able to do his job, then they should invoke the 25th Amendment," Warren told CNN. "The Constitution provides for a procedure whenever the Vice President and senior officials think the President can't do his job. It does not provide that senior officials go around the President -- take documents off his desk, write anonymous op-eds ... Everyone of these officials have sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States. It's time for them to do their job."

The hard-charging comments by the potential 2020 presidential candidate come in the wake of the stunning New York Times piece where an anonymous official raises deep concerns about the President
Quote
and contends there were some initial conversations to invoke the 25th Amendment to remove the President from office
. The White House has aggressively pushed back on the piece, calling the author a traitor and a coward.

61
General Comments / Re: Who will be next to speak out about Trump?
« on: June 30, 2020, 03:41:43 PM »
Quote
If the talking head on Fox identifies as Republican, then they're correctly identified as such. Even if others might like to claim otherwise.

Likewise, it is only reasonable to call self-identified Democrats on CNN, and there are several,  what they identify as.

OK, now you've done it.  Name a Democrat on CNN who called for the 25th Amendment on that network. <starting my stop watch....now.>

62
Quote
Just to be clear.  There's no definitional confusion.  Both sides know exactly what the words were intended to mean.  The left just plays a game of redefinition to allow them to argue for new meaning to the written word.

Do you think the current law serves the intent it was created for?

63
Quote
In that case, you formulate the replacement, get agreement on the replacement among the sponsors, then you replace the previous formulation.

How very partisan of you to want that in this case.  How come the Republicans tried to repeal the ACA 70 times and never had anything to replace it with?

Quote
So instead of fixing the ineffective parts of the existing law, they're instead opting for no law, and hoping that the general population doesn't want to see what is going on in the sausage factory while they go about doing whatever it is they intend to do.

Step one, unless you think they are indeed racists who are trying to make sure that racism goes unchecked.  You can't have it both ways by accusing Democrats of wanting too many protections for disadvantaged segments of the population and wanting to get rid of protections.

64
General Comments / Re: Who will be next to speak out about Trump?
« on: June 30, 2020, 02:22:09 PM »
Who cares what talking heads say, or would you be willing to label everyone who comes on FOX and conservative talk radio programs Republicans?  We could have a lot of fun talking about the bat*censored* crazy things they want to do to Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff.

65
General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: June 30, 2020, 01:43:32 PM »
As hoaxes go, this is a damn good one.  We need Crunch to come back and defend the smh ranch.

Quote
Anthony S. Fauci, the nation’s top infectious-diseases expert, gave a dire warning Tuesday in a Senate committee hearing held as coronavirus infections surge in many parts of the United States.

“We are now having 40-plus thousand new cases a day. I would not be surprised if we go up to 100,000 a day if this does not turn around. And so I am very concerned,” Fauci said in response to questioning from Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) on what the overall U.S. death toll is likely to be.

Let's hope Fauci is wrong, but he doesn't know how to head it off.

66
General Comments / Re: Who will be next to speak out about Trump?
« on: June 30, 2020, 01:39:21 PM »
The problem with that claim is if it is true, I'd be expecting the 25th Amendment to be getting invoked regularly. And for former officials to be loudly and frequently talking about using it to get him out ASAP.

As far as I can recall, it's only been the Democrats who have actively calling for that. Certain former officials from Trump's own Administration(rather than inherited from Obama) do seem to be pushing for impeachment, but not for the cabinet to use the 25th Amendment. That tends to suggest certain claims should be taken with a very large grain of salt.

Can you name a Democrat in Congress who called for the 25th Amendment to be used?

67
Quote
The two positions cannot be easily reconciled, to say the least.

Are you saying that it is racist to repeal an ineffectual law that was intended to thwart racist practices?

Your question is loaded and at cross purposed with itself. Let's assume this had been posed as two separate questions:

No, let's try to answer the question I asked, not however many questions you would like to change it into.

Quote
1) Are you saying that it is racist to repeat a law that was intended to thwart racist practices?
-The answer to this would presumably be yes, on the face of it. The law itself says you can't discriminate, so repealing it says you can. This one is super-simple to answer.

Perhaps there is a better formulation of the law that would provide greater benefit.  In that case, repealing the old law would be a good idea.

Quote
2) Are you saying that it is racist to repeal an ineffectual law?
-If the law was engineered poorly and required a newer or modified version, I would agree that this would not be racist, the idea being we didn't quite get it right and let's try again. But they are not modifying it; in fact the repeal is saying the opposite of the law should be the norm, that one should be able to discriminate. This isn't a case of bad engineering as you suggest, but of the fact that the law as intended is not what is desired in the current climate. They want to be able to discriminate, with the obvious aim being affirmative action.

Nothing but word games.  You love to deconstruct and reparse what other people write.  Not playing.

Quote
So this boils down not to fixing a bad law, but to a redefinition of what racism is.

Right, word games.  Not what the intention was of the people who are repealing it are aiming for, but what you impose on them. 

68
Quote
The two positions cannot be easily reconciled, to say the least.

Are you saying that it is racist to repeal an ineffectual law that was intended to thwart racist practices?

69
General Comments / Re: Who will be next to speak out about Trump?
« on: June 30, 2020, 07:39:30 AM »
Crap, what's wrong with these people?!?  They spend time in the same room with Trump, and they just don't get it.

Quote
In hundreds of highly classified phone calls with foreign heads of state, President Donald Trump was so consistently unprepared for discussion of serious issues, so often outplayed in his conversations with powerful leaders like Russian President Vladimir Putin and Turkish President Recep Erdogan, and so abusive to leaders of America's principal allies, that the calls helped convince some senior US officials -- including his former secretaries of state and defense, two national security advisers and his longest-serving chief of staff -- that the President himself posed a danger to the national security of the United States, according to White House and intelligence officials intimately familiar with the contents of the conversations.

70
Quote
Most of what you're wanting to call racism isn't racism at all. It is more correctly called tribalism where "tribe" can be a very ephemeral thing.

And the big thing about tribalism is people want to feel empowered, and they'll often seek that empowerment by means of identifying with a tribe.

After their tribe has been defined, that search for empowerment takes the next step. They seek to denigrate and degrade those of any opposing tribe they can identify.

Racism is simply the simplest expression of tribalism because skin color and other physical characteristics are not easily changed. But it isn't the only form that tribalism can take.

Modern day hate groups in the United States don't operate along racial lines anymore. They now operate along ideological ones. And there is plenty of historical precedent for that. Just ask any Mormon, Catholic, or Jew about that just that.

There is so much wrong with that brief soliloquy that I have to hold back my comments.  But first, let me assure you that I am not a racist.  You can take my word for that, because I just told you.  My friends also would say I'm not a racist, and I can attest that they aren't racists, either.

It's also probably true that most Jews in Germany wouldn't say that the Nazis were anti-semitic racists.  In fact, most of them tried to fit into society just like the Nazis, which proves that they were all part of the same tribe.  It didn't work out, but only for purely technical reasons, not because the Nazis were anti-semitic racists.

In modern America, what you call "hate groups" aren't hateful and certainly aren't tribalists, and they would tell you that if you ask them.  The religious groups that we might think hate blacks would explain to you, calmly I might add, that they are only following "God's order" and that all people, not just blacks, but also whites, should know and respect their proper place in society. You don't have to be a racist tribalist to see that.

It's really just a matter of empowerment, and there's just not enough power to go around.  It's just common sense that you would reserve as much power for yourself and your friends, your family, your church, your social caste as possible.

It just makes sense, and no offense intended.

71
Quote
So California's legislature seeking to pass ACA-5 to repeal the Equal right protection in their state constitution for the purpose of being able to award millions of dollars worth of contracts to minority and woman owned businesses on the basis of their race, gender, or sexual identity is not racist, sexist, or bigoted in any way shape or form? They decided these people are unable to compete on the basis of those things, so we need to enact special laws "to help them" do so?

You're equating creating (or in this case repealing, though I'm taking your word for what they're doing) laws to guarantee access to services to people who are discriminated against because of their race to be racist?  I'll guess that you support people's rights to discriminate against people because of their race, if their religion encourages or allows it, because that's called "religious freedom."

72
Remember, TheDeamon, there are also different degrees of racism.

You don't have to be a full-fledge KKK member who wants to ship back all the blacks to Africa to be a racist.  Just quietly believing that black are less intelligent, less moral, and inferior to you and/or everyone else would also be considered racist.  As would turning a blind eye to racist actions by others.

These are not degrees of racism, you are mixing up your terms. What you are describing include prejudice, stereotyping, and perhaps racism as well

I beg to differ.  Having prejudice against blacks and stereotyping them [as inferior] is racism.

Quote

, but merely having an improper thought "is not" racism. The far left currently defines it as unequal outcomes, period full stop, which makes racism a systemic statement, not a matter of whether you believe X or Y.

If we can agree that the neither the "far left" nor the "far right" are mainstream left or right politically, it's irrelevant what they think if you're talking about attitudes within the general population.  That most populous segment is where institutional and systemic racism exists and is perpetuated.

Quote
That is why the claim "but I do not have negative attitudes towards minorities" is considered to be a non-answer to the charge that one is racist.

True for several reasons.  The biggest is that it often isn't true.  Someone who hasn't been confronted with acting on their so-called principles isn't a necessarily reliable witness to their own thoughts and feelings.  There is also "the soft bigotry of low expectations," which is how most mainstream racists think and behave.

Quote
The sort of prejudice and stereotyping you describe can exist inside a racist system, but also not.  Your lingo is 20 years out of date. 

It seems very current to me.

73
Central Park Five.  Can you explain what he did any other way?

74
General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: June 29, 2020, 02:01:11 PM »
Quote
If a vaccine exists, and most people get the vaccine, the only people who can get and continue to propagate the disease at that point are the non-vaccinated who don't isolate themselves from the general (non-vaccinated) population.

Not if the vaccine is only 70-75% effective, which Fauci says is common.  I had the senior flu vaccine last October and I caught a bad case of the flu in February.

Quote
Sure plenty of the anti-vaxxers will only experience no to mild symptoms once "their turn comes" with Covid19, but it'll kill many of them as well. And that isn't getting into the possibility of their later possibly getting the "honor" of being infected with it a second, third, or fourth time.

I'm more concerned about who else they infect, which given the lack of perfect immunity people who are vaccinated will have, that could be me or anyone in my family.

Quote
But as I said, it sucks for the ones who have genuine medical reasons not to vaccinate, as that means they have to continue to limit their social interactions possibly for an additional year or more while the Anti-Vaxxers go about continually re-infecting each other. It also gets to annoy the general population as that also means they need to continue getting the booster shots because eradication hasn't yet happened inside our national borders.

It's not at all clear, as even you stipulate, that the vaccine will protect people for more than a few months.  So even if you did get the vaccination, it might wear off much sooner than you expect or realize.  In other words, the vaccine will help, but it's not a panacea.

75
Quote
Indifference, or more simply put apathy, on the subject of racism or word choice does not make a person racist. It means they simply don't care one way or the other. That is what indifference and apathy mean after all.

Indifference to racism is racism, full stop.  One can be indifferent to slavery, sexual abuse, animal cruelty or rampant injustice, or whether other people have access to health care, etc., etc., etc.  Or, as Trump might say, some of the slave owners, sexual abusers, animal abusers, those who deny people health care or treat people unfairly in the justice system are good people, too.  Not my problem as long as it doesn't affect me personally.

76
General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: June 29, 2020, 11:54:11 AM »
Quote
From a social evolution standpoint, Darwin should take care of the rest at that point. It just sucks for those who are in the group who are (genuinely) medically advised against getting vaccines in general, rather than anti-vaxxers.

Darwin isn't selective, so many anti-vaxxers may be ok, but people they come in contact with may suffer because of their exercise of their right.  I would humbly propose that anyone who refuses the vaccine should wear a little sticker, like you do after you vote, that says "I didn't take the COVID-19 vaccine. FCUK you".  The misspelling would be fitting in this case.

77
Quote
But from someone I consider to be reasonably unbiased on the matter who claims to have seen the video. The guy is being heckled, jeered, and having numerous epithets hurled at him for tens of seconds prior to his using that response. You don't see them reporting on that part of things.

OK, he didn't mean any offense when he yelled White Nationalist at people who were heckling because they object to things Trump says and does.  He was just joining in the fun.

78
General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: June 29, 2020, 08:39:34 AM »
Fauci has given up on contact tracing because 40-60% of people who are infected are asymptomatic.  His partial solution is to "blanket" a community and test everyone.  That won't happen, either. He says that if a vaccine is 70-75% effective it would lead to herd immunity if 100% of people take the vaccine.  Other polling says that perhaps as many as 40-50% would refuse to be vaccinated, which would ensure that we never reach the herd immunity threshold.  All discussion about the efficacy of the vaccine assumes that the protection is long-lasting, which no scientific group can as yet promise.

The best advice remains to avoid doing stooped things: Don't throw out your mask, Don't french kiss strangers, Don't go to a Pence/Trump rally...

79
General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: June 29, 2020, 06:52:46 AM »
Quote
For healthcare workers or caregivers with prolonged exposure inside 1M of others it’s not symbolic. Most everyone else, it’s symbolic.

Then how does the virus spread in the population?  How have dozens of people who gathered at bars, restaurants, church services, lakes, etc., caught it from each other?

80
General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: June 28, 2020, 04:28:44 PM »
Uh-oh, somebody's days are numbered.

Quote
Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar warned Sunday that the "window is closing" for the United States to get the coronavirus pandemic under control, as confirmed cases are surging in a majority of the country and some states are dealing with record numbers of hospitalizations.

"Things are very different from two months ago... So it is a very different situation, but this is a very, very serious situation and the window is closing for us to take action and get this under control," Azar told CNN's Jake Tapper on "State of the Union."

The question with this Administration is always whether the disease is a political issue or a health emergency.  If Azar is talking "health" I wonder if Pence and Trump won't be too far behind.  That, or Azar will be the one in the rear view mirror.

81
General Comments / Re: Washington DC Statehood
« on: June 28, 2020, 05:53:42 AM »
Quote
Besides, if you believe the AGW hysteria, DC is probably going to be largely underwater in 100 years anyway. Best to get started on the move.

The best and maybe only good reason to move it :).  Or if you're a Grover Norquist fan, keep it there and "drown it in the bathtub" of AGW reality.

82
General Comments / Re: Is it weird?
« on: June 28, 2020, 05:49:37 AM »
Wilson is complicated. He deserves to be studied for his impact, his ideas, and his morality. He does not deserve a place of honor. He should be examined equally in all his good and bad qualities.

That reminds me to quote Teddy Roosevelt (again).  The timing is good, too, as I think his letter should be read out loud alongside the annual reading of the Declaration of Independence on the 4th of July.

Quote
“Free speech, exercised both individually and through a free press, is a necessity in any country where the people are themselves free. Our Government is the servant of the people, whereas in Germany it is the master of the people. This is because the American people are free and the German people are not free.

The President is merely the most important among a large number of public servants. He should be supported or opposed exactly to the degree which is warranted by his good conduct or bad conduct, his efficiency or inefficiency in rendering loyal, able, and disinterested service to the nation as a whole. Therefore it is absolutely necessary that there should be full liberty to tell the truth about his acts, and this means that it is exactly as necessary to blame him when he does wrong as to praise him when he does right. Any other attitude in an American citizen is both base and servile. To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else.”

83
General Comments / Re: Protestors vs. Rioters
« on: June 28, 2020, 05:44:37 AM »
You're going to be wading hip deep in the definition game on this one. Have fun!

20 years ago, or even 12 year ago. I would have had no hesitation in trying to define racism. But since a certain person won election in 2008, the word seems to have picked up so many additional applications I wouldn't even bother to try. Especially after "White privilege" entered the scene. Near as I can tell, if you're white, it doesn't matter what you do, its somehow racist.

I think I'm going to agree with Tim Pool on this. We're in the middle of a non-theistic Religious Revival fervor, only the new religion is Anti-Racism, the original sin is White Privilege, forgiveness is to be sought be kneeling and babbling apologies to any available persons of color, and accepting with joy any verbal or physical abuse those minority groups see fit to bless them with.

Gen Z is more religious than previous generations, they just created an entirely different religion than what anyone expected.

I'm in agreement with much of what you said TheDaemon. I do see and dislike the religious aspects of this.

Our disagreement lies in that I'm seeing this new religion much like I'd see Christianity rising from the ranks of the slaves of the Roman Empire. Though I hate the Christians for what they later did, e.g. to people like Hypatia, when they in turn became dominant, if at an earlier period of time I had to choose between them and Nero or Caligula, I'll still choose the Christians.

You are seeing the seeds of a future oppression against white people: I think you're possibly correct, much like Christianity contained within it the resentful seeds of oppression against non-Christians.

But in the meantime non-white people are still the ones being oppressed, still the ones who are underprivileged, and I'll rather side with the slaves of the Roman empire rather than the masters.

It may go against human nature to correct sins without becoming just another version of what you reject, but humanity does learn and adapt.  The result of freeing the slaves doesn't have to be enslaving ourselves to what the slaves suffered.  White privilege is real, but call it a caste system if that term is more acceptable to you.

84
General Comments / Re: Is it weird?
« on: June 27, 2020, 04:06:08 PM »
I assume many who object know that he was perhaps the most racist President since Jackson.  When he took office he immediately began firing black supervisors who oversaw some white employees and replaced them with white men.

Quote
In 1914, a group of black professionals led by newspaper editor and Harvard alumnus Monroe Trotter met with Wilson to protest the segregation. Wilson informed Trotter, "Segregation is not humiliating, but a benefit, and ought to be so regarded by you gentlemen." When Trotter insisted that "it is untenable, in view of the established facts, to maintain that the segregation is simply to avoid race friction, for the simple reason that for fifty years white and colored clerks have been working together in peace and harmony and friendliness," Wilson admonished him for his tone: "If this organization is ever to have another hearing before me it must have another spokesman. Your manner offends me … Your tone, with its background of passion."

85
General Comments / Re: BoJo Boffo or Bozo?
« on: June 27, 2020, 11:58:55 AM »
Not clear why, but a UK poll taken in 2019 and just released says that 57% of UK citizens want to stay in the EU, and only 32% want to leave.  BoJo must have known this before running on his Brexit platform.

86
General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: June 27, 2020, 11:36:43 AM »
It looks like there are new symptoms and ways to catch coronavirus.  The CDC has added coughing, diarrhea and nausea/vomiting as additional symptoms.  The new disease vector appears to be consuming misinformation from listening to conservative media, especially FOX TV and conservative talk shows.  In order to minimize your ongoing exposure, you may need to wipe down, wash or dispose of your TV, laptop or radio, or simply change the channel.

87
General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: June 27, 2020, 08:52:19 AM »
New proposal from Fauci to speed up the testing process using fewer tests.  Basically, they would take samples from a "pool" of people (20 is suggested) and combine them into a single test.  If the result is negative, they move on to the next group.  If positive, they test all of the people in the pool.

It's not clear to me how effective that approach will be given that the percentage of people in each test area who are infected may end up requiring all members of the pool to be tested anyway.  For example, if 5% or more of people in an area are infected and 20 people are tested, the pool result will be statistically likely to be positive, so they'll have to do the individual tests most of the time anyway. 

For this approach to work, they will have to pick a pool size for each area that is projected to be small enough that the likelihood anyone in the pool is infected is very low.  TheDeamon mentioned the other day that in his state the positive result rate is under 3%.  If the state rate is used as the guideline, they might be able to use a pool with as many as 50 people.  Florida is seeing positive results in as many as 15% of tests, so this approach probably won't work at all.

The approach can be pretty effective at reducing the number of tests. Its not exactly a new idea in testing. I used to assign this exact problem as a combination of probability and calculus when I taught. It ends up being a reasonably straight forward problem to stagger the number of tests to minimize runs as long as you have enough material to do multiple runs from a sample if one does come back positive.

This can work in environments where lots of people are brought together, like large workplaces and public schools.  For example, if every classroom in an elementary school is tested every week, I can see schools staying open and operating with protections but more or less as they did before.

88
General Comments / Re: Washington DC Statehood
« on: June 27, 2020, 07:05:28 AM »
Quote
I guess another option is the process of returning Washington D.C. to Maryland while the Federal Government begins the process of selecting a new capital selection process, where a new Federal District is constructed from bedrock up at a new location which a new grouping of states have agreed to cede to Federal Control. Only this time "the federal reservation" will not play host to permanent residents so as to avoid the issue in the future. Likewise, all land within that "reservation" will remain property of the Federal Government, private property will not exist in the Federal District 2.0 much like the case in many Military bases across the country.

That's what the Founders did in creating a "bedrock...federal reservation" in WDC. It is completely impractical and unnecessary to move it from its current location for a host of reasons.  If you don't want to make a new state, we could just make the changes you suggest and the problem would be solved.

89
General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: June 27, 2020, 06:59:47 AM »
While I agree that would help with slowing the spread of the virus while letting us still get out and about what I wonder is does the President have such authority?
Probably not, but the courts can be weird about emergency powers.

It would be a helpful measure, but it's only one thing.  We need a full-blown campaign to do all the things that everyone already knows we need, but that none of the states where the cases are rising would be willing to do.  Rather than protect public welfare, they want to protect "individual freedoms".  There is no "we", only "me".  All of the countries that have successfully addressed the surge in cases and deaths have done the opposite.

90
General Comments / Re: Washington DC Statehood
« on: June 26, 2020, 05:49:45 PM »
Nay. Fed should stay separate from State.

I didn't mean a simple vote.  Why?

91
General Comments / Washington DC Statehood
« on: June 26, 2020, 05:07:34 PM »
There are a number of possible resolutions to giving state citizenship to the residents of Washington, DC.  Here's an overview of the issues. All solutions I've seen carve out the area comprising the federal buildings, but not the population of the DC area.
Briefly,

* Make WDC the 51st state
* Give the land back to Maryland or Virginia
* Give WDC semi-state status with voting rights in Congress.  Different proposals have been discussed.

Reasons given to oppose,

* Making it a state would add to the Democratic Party membership in Congress.
* The state would be 3rd smallest by population, adding to the imbalanced influence of small states on Congress and the electoral college
* The federal government would be surrounded by the new state and dependent on it for services and commerce

Yea or nay?

92
General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: June 26, 2020, 02:40:21 PM »
Wow.  After accusing me of being willing to vote for Hitler and something having to do with Stalin because I am willing to vote for the "less evil" of the DNC or RNC candidates, all of a sudden your principled outrage seems to have vanished.  You can't even come up with a specific thing any of them did that you completely agree with, as I asked you to do.  Instead, you don't have a problem with Carter?  You liked Bill Clinton well enough?  Obama was better than W?  Don't bother climbing back up on your high horse, because next time I won't take your pious outrage very seriously.

Your particular question was IMO specious, as asking me to cite a single thing I liked that any President has done is surely sarcastic at best and is in any case off-topic with the fact that I'm calling out your position as essentially being "vote for X because Y is worse". That kind of logic is precisely the one used in the earlier 20th century to vote in bad people to stop allegedly worse people. TheDrake is right, don't be a part of that.

The question wasn't specious and I wasn't being at all sarcastic.  You ripped me a new one for taking a pragmatic view of the candidates and offering that one is less evil than the other.  You were so strident that the only choice one could make was the purely principled one, so I offered you an opportunity to point out some President who did something that you wouldn't find fell short of your demand.  You couldn't come up with anything, so you deflected and offered that, well, some of the past Presidents were actually ok.  That was a garbage response coming from someone with such adamant views on purity.  And now you double down on backing down.  So it goes, and so it went.

93
General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: June 26, 2020, 02:14:37 PM »
The seeming constant stream of plausible discoveries and analyses about the disease only makes it seem less certain that we yet know what we're dealing with.  The highs are evenly matched with lows, leaving me with the sense that I will need to protect myself for a long time, maybe years.  I won't be eating in restaurants and will be much more selective about who and for how long I socialize with friends than ever before in my lifetime. 

It also bodes very badly for the economy and what we used to call the cultural status quo.  They will be different than before, with the adult population having different employment, shopping and medical needs than before.  I wouldn't be surprised if we don't see the so-called social welfare state get ushered in where there are universal personal subsidies, universal health care and massive government infrastructure projects.  That's just the tip of the iceberg.  Bernie Sanders may have been too conservative a spokesman for the Brave New World.

94
General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: June 26, 2020, 11:47:28 AM »
It's refreshing to be in the company of people with such pious political beliefs.  I confess that I am not pure, and I have sinned.

Good to know.

Quote
Serious question for you.  Is there anything any President has done that you think was worthy?  I'll point out before you answer that whatever it was that you approve of was done in the political realm and a lot of people objected and were opposed to it when it was done.

Honestly my opinion of Presidents since JFK is pretty low. Granted, for several of them I've only read about them or seen videos, as I wasn't alive at the time. I don't know that I have a problem with Carter, generally. I blame Reagan/Bush for the War on Drugs, among other things. When I was younger and didn't follow these things I liked Bill Clinton well enough. Since him I've had serious problems with those that followed. If you want to talk individual good moves I'm sure I could cite some that even W did, but I'm not sure what zeroing in on one good thing amid many bad things achieves. Obama was better than W, but that's not saying much.

Wow.  After accusing me of being willing to vote for Hitler and something having to do with Stalin because I am willing to vote for the "less evil" of the DNC or RNC candidates, all of a sudden your principled outrage seems to have vanished.  You can't even come up with a specific thing any of them did that you completely agree with, as I asked you to do.  Instead, you don't have a problem with Carter?  You liked Bill Clinton well enough?  Obama was better than W?  Don't bother climbing back up on your high horse, because next time I won't take your pious outrage very seriously.

95
General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: June 26, 2020, 08:47:56 AM »
New proposal from Fauci to speed up the testing process using fewer tests.  Basically, they would take samples from a "pool" of people (20 is suggested) and combine them into a single test.  If the result is negative, they move on to the next group.  If positive, they test all of the people in the pool.

It's not clear to me how effective that approach will be given that the percentage of people in each test area who are infected may end up requiring all members of the pool to be tested anyway.  For example, if 5% or more of people in an area are infected and 20 people are tested, the pool result will be statistically likely to be positive, so they'll have to do the individual tests most of the time anyway. 

For this approach to work, they will have to pick a pool size for each area that is projected to be small enough that the likelihood anyone in the pool is infected is very low.  TheDeamon mentioned the other day that in his state the positive result rate is under 3%.  If the state rate is used as the guideline, they might be able to use a pool with as many as 50 people.  Florida is seeing positive results in as many as 15% of tests, so this approach probably won't work at all.

96
General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: June 26, 2020, 07:36:26 AM »
... and today, the USA saw its first ever day with more than 40,000 new cases reported.

That makes the 16th straight day where the 7-day average increased from the previous day.  The USA is unquestionably in a significant and consistent upward trend.

Interesting analysis of how the virus spread in the US from the first cases through May.

97
General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: June 26, 2020, 06:35:32 AM »
"Seem" is the right word.  It's worse than the Yogi Berra dilemma of what to do when you come to a fork in the road.  You want to go straight.  I was callow once, too.

Yeah, "callow". Good to see how much you've "matured" after giving up and voting for anyone the party will send out of the gate no matter who they are. This argument boils down to little more than "vote for X because Y is worse", which is exactly the platform used by everything from well-meaning democrats to dictators. Vote Hitler, because we need to stop the communist onslaught. It's the same crap, different packaging. Stalin is the devil, so no matter that 'our guy' is pretty bad, it doesn't matter, because you have to pick one side or the other. And then in the other thread we talk about how the Germans have to own the shame of it...

It's refreshing to be in the company of people with such pious political beliefs.  I confess that I am not pure, and I have sinned. 

Serious question for you.  Is there anything any President has done that you think was worthy?  I'll point out before you answer that whatever it was that you approve of was done in the political realm and a lot of people objected and were opposed to it when it was done.

98
General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: June 25, 2020, 10:18:55 PM »
The twitter post you link to cites a Politico article that stipulates the following:

Quote
Participants in the boogaloo movement generally identify as anarchist, pro-Second Amendment members of so-called citizen militias who are preparing for a second Civil War or American Revolution, extremism experts say.
...
The assessment is striking given the public emphasis President Donald Trump and Attorney General William Barr have placed on alleged violence carried out by adherents of the left-wing ideology antifa, while refusing to specifically identify and denounce the far-right groups like boogaloo that have been charged in recent weeks for acts ranging from felony murder to terrorism.

If that ain't pointing to right wing extremism, what does?

Then, having Boogaloo been identified as a terrorist group, you then cite a bogus self-declaration of boogaloo principles as supposedly authoritative that starts with:

Quote
Hey there. Thanks for taking the time out of your day to think about us. Let me clarify for you that we are neither “violent”, nor are we “extremists”. We want peace. We want the government to leave American citizens alone with ALL of their rights intact. (Pt 1)

Ah, so the violent extremist organization is neither "violent" nor "extremist".  Check.

And then they disavow the terrorists who claim to be Boogaloo members:

Quote
(Pt 6) Because we know people will point to the terrorist, Carrillo and the three stooges who were making homemade explosives. None of us (all influential people in our movement) condoned or instructed those men to commit evil or anything close to it.

And nowhere do you cite anything that directly mentions the monster hiding in plain sight, antifa.

Quote
As for "verified report of AntiFa" you need only Google the CHOP and the "John Brown Gun Club" which is AntiFa.

Antifa?  Says who?  They don't.  If they are antifa, why don't they come out and tell us?

99
General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: June 25, 2020, 02:32:53 PM »
Quote
We had the Bundy family activities under Obama, and we now have Anti-Fa and BLM acting up under Trump.

Why are you leaving out Boogaloo and other white supremacist groups that are responsible for the vast majority of violent attacks on people and buildings over the past 20 years, and are much more visibly involved in the current protests than Antifa?  In fact, I still have not heard of a verified report of Antifa, only rumors and highly partisan and charged attempts to tie them to violence.

100
General Comments / Re: coronavirus
« on: June 25, 2020, 01:45:29 PM »
So you're going to vote for TheDrake's Aunt Millie, too?  Since 95% of voters select either the Democratic or Republican candidate, you'll have absolutely no impact on how the next President will act.  But you'll know you did the right thing, anyway, because neither of them deserves your vote.

Yes, it's most convenient! You can do anything you like, ruin nations abroad, divide the American populace, and anything else, and then always fall back on "hey, who else is there to vote for"? The only reason this didn't already devolve in a revolution is because America is too prosperous; give people lots of stuff and they won't muster up much energy to be upset at the same things that would lead to revolt in poorer countries. Why change when you don't have to? Answer: you won't, so the DNC and RNC can just have at it. You can point that out as a reality, but I don't see any reason to celebrate it as you seem to do.

"Seem" is the right word.  It's worse than the Yogi Berra dilemma of what to do when you come to a fork in the road.  You want to go straight.  I was callow once, too.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 36