Lots of the California statutes were weird. As the state that is supposedly the most progressive in the US, they voted for a law to confiscate tents from homeless people but against a law to increase funding for shelters (the intention was that the two should go hand in hand)
When I was in SF the homeless problem was nuts. Every park seemed to have it's little group of tents or guy with a shopping trolley full of possessions. Way, way more than I ever saw in London.
Squirt wrote:
When I was in SF the homeless problem was nuts. Every park seemed to have it's little group of tents or guy with a shopping trolley full of possessions. Way, way more than I ever saw in London.
The homeless migrate to San Fancisco. It's noted for tolerance and support, though I'm not sure that holds true when people actually get there.
Cras wrote:
Squirt wrote:
When I was in SF the homeless problem was nuts. Every park seemed to have it's little group of tents or guy with a shopping trolley full of possessions. Way, way more than I ever saw in London.
The homeless migrate to San Fancisco. It's noted for tolerance and support, though I'm not sure that holds true when people actually get there.
I stayed at the YMCA in the Tenderloin. That was, um, interesting. Out of the window, you could see people warming themselves by braziers.
And now you live in Bradford...
Bobbyaro wrote:
And now you live in Bradford...
Nab Wood, thankyouverymuch
MaliA wrote:
Out of the window, you could see people warming themselves by braziers.
Womens Lib Rally?
Cras wrote:
Squirt wrote:
When I was in SF the homeless problem was nuts. Every park seemed to have it's little group of tents or guy with a shopping trolley full of possessions. Way, way more than I ever saw in London.
The homeless migrate to San Fancisco. It's noted for tolerance and support, though I'm not sure that holds true when people actually get there.
Indeed, it's a Sanctuary City, one of the things that Trump is going to defund.
Obama has used his executive powers to permanently protect Planned Parenthood.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 11401.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 11401.html
Quote:
Donald J. Trump, who earlier in the week said he was open to requiring Muslims in the United States to register in a database, said on Thursday night that he “would certainly implement that — absolutely.”
Mr. Trump was asked about the issue by an NBC News reporter and pressed on whether all Muslims in the country would be forced to register. “They have to be,” he said. “They have to be.’’
When asked how a system of registering Muslims would be carried out — whether, for instance, mosques would be where people could register — Mr. Trump said: “Different places. You sign up at different places. But it’s all about management. Our country has no management.’’
Asked later, as he signed autographs, how such a database would be different from Jews having to register in Nazi Germany, Mr. Trump repeatedly said, “You tell me,” until he stopped responding to the question.
Mr. Trump was asked about the issue by an NBC News reporter and pressed on whether all Muslims in the country would be forced to register. “They have to be,” he said. “They have to be.’’
When asked how a system of registering Muslims would be carried out — whether, for instance, mosques would be where people could register — Mr. Trump said: “Different places. You sign up at different places. But it’s all about management. Our country has no management.’’
Asked later, as he signed autographs, how such a database would be different from Jews having to register in Nazi Germany, Mr. Trump repeatedly said, “You tell me,” until he stopped responding to the question.
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-d ... -register/
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
Quote:
Donald J. Trump, who earlier in the week said he was open to requiring Muslims in the United States to register in a database, said on Thursday night that he “would certainly implement that — absolutely.”
Mr. Trump was asked about the issue by an NBC News reporter and pressed on whether all Muslims in the country would be forced to register. “They have to be,” he said. “They have to be.’’
When asked how a system of registering Muslims would be carried out — whether, for instance, mosques would be where people could register — Mr. Trump said: “Different places. You sign up at different places. But it’s all about management. Our country has no management.’’
Asked later, as he signed autographs, how such a database would be different from Jews having to register in Nazi Germany, Mr. Trump repeatedly said, “You tell me,” until he stopped responding to the question.
Mr. Trump was asked about the issue by an NBC News reporter and pressed on whether all Muslims in the country would be forced to register. “They have to be,” he said. “They have to be.’’
When asked how a system of registering Muslims would be carried out — whether, for instance, mosques would be where people could register — Mr. Trump said: “Different places. You sign up at different places. But it’s all about management. Our country has no management.’’
Asked later, as he signed autographs, how such a database would be different from Jews having to register in Nazi Germany, Mr. Trump repeatedly said, “You tell me,” until he stopped responding to the question.
http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-d ... -register/
-edit- that's from November 2015.
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
--the US Declaration of Independence
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
--the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States
--the US Declaration of Independence
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
--the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States
Lonewolves wrote:
-edit- that's from November 2015.
Ah. Thanks. Still, though.
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
Lonewolves wrote:
-edit- that's from November 2015.
Ah. Thanks. Still, though.
Yeah it's awful, but no way will it happen now. Banning Muslims from entering American was soon taken off his campaign website after he was announced the winner.
Lonewolves wrote:
Obama has used his executive powers to permanently protect Planned Parenthood.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 11401.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 11401.html
What's stopping Trump from undoing that?
Grim... wrote:
Lonewolves wrote:
Obama has used his executive powers to permanently protect Planned Parenthood.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 11401.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 11401.html
What's stopping Trump from undoing that?
From my understanding of what the man said on tbe radio yesterday, nothing. Had it gone through congress then it would be a lot harder. Tje man on tbe radio said that a lot of his stuff is on feet of clay.
Grim... wrote:
Lonewolves wrote:
Obama has used his executive powers to permanently protect Planned Parenthood.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 11401.html
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 11401.html
What's stopping Trump from undoing that?
The word 'permanent'.
I'm sure they'll find a way around it, but this is the wording:
Quote:
Under the new rule, proposed by the US Department of Health and Human Services, funding would only be withheld to the service if the provider’s “ability to deliver services to program beneficiaries” is not done so “in an effective manner”.
In effect, services under the ‘Title X’ programme, which provides basic preventative healthcare for four million low-income earners, cannot be withdrawn due to political reasons.
In effect, services under the ‘Title X’ programme, which provides basic preventative healthcare for four million low-income earners, cannot be withdrawn due to political reasons.
So if they argue successfully it's not effective, it can be reversed.
Lonewolves wrote:
Grim... wrote:
What's stopping Trump from undoing that?
The word 'permanent'.
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
Lonewolves wrote:
Grim... wrote:
What's stopping Trump from undoing that?
The word 'permanent'.
Quite.
Lonewolves wrote:
Yeah it's awful, but no way will it happen now. Banning Muslims from entering American was soon taken off his campaign website after he was announced the winner.
And then put back: https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-rele ... mmigration
Grim... wrote:
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
Lonewolves wrote:
Grim... wrote:
What's stopping Trump from undoing that?
The word 'permanent'.
Quite.
You guys.
They need to bring Emperor Norton back. He'd sort the country out.
Kern wrote:
They need to bring Emperor Norton back. He'd sort the country out.
Haha, that's huge! 
Christ. Almost life-sized.
Looking pretty healthy for someone approaching 200.
Bigger isn't always better*
*Eponymous
ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGH
Grim... wrote:
ARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGH
That's not scary, you can barely make out any of my grotesque features.
If you squint it looks like the latter day Stuart Campbell.
markg wrote:
If you squint it looks like the latter day Stuart Campbell.
Gerry Adams I could cope with.
Rolf Harris was slightly disappointing.
BUT THIS?!
There are no words
Lonewolves wrote:
markg wrote:
If you squint it looks like the latter day Stuart Campbell.
Gerry Adams I could cope with.
Rolf Harris was slightly disappointing.
BUT THIS?!
There are no words
Child abuse is more than disappointing, Myp!
Hey Myp, do you know what happens if you chuck a ball on a moving train? I heard it GOES BACK IN TIME.
Trooper wrote:
Attachment:
GK03e0Bs.jpg
Interesting picture. Republican numbers stayed pretty much the same as the last few times, Democrat numbers were 10 million votes down on Obama's first term.
It was a "Not Hillary" result, rather than a "Trump" result.
So interestingly it appears that it was far too soon to draw this conclusion. California and Washington have voting laws that allow for late ballots, and an estimate of this morning reckons there's around 5 million ballots still to count. Being in solid blue states there's no chance of changing the electoral collage results but it looks like Clinton's popular vote lead is going to end up being pretty huge, and her turnout is going to be pretty close to what Obama gained.
I have a lot of time for this line of thought: https://medium.com/@jamesallworth/brexi ... .3db24154t
I agree, but there's much more at play. People who are doing well from the status quo voted for these things too.
Sure, it's not the whole of it -- no one thing is. But I believe it's significant.
I read an interesting article that I cannot find at the moment. It used data to control for loads of variables to see things about Trump/Brexit. It seemed to find that the economy isn't the biggest deal. Immigration and authoritarianism are far more important than the actual effect of these things. By far the biggest split between Trump/Brexit and those opposed was on the question:
"Do you believe it is more important for a child to be considerate, or respectful of authority".
That caused an absolute chasm in difference of response.More people who voted Clinton and voted Remain listed the economy as a concern than those for Trump and Brexit, whose top concerns were immigration and terrorism.
"Do you believe it is more important for a child to be considerate, or respectful of authority".
That caused an absolute chasm in difference of response.More people who voted Clinton and voted Remain listed the economy as a concern than those for Trump and Brexit, whose top concerns were immigration and terrorism.
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
I have a lot of time for this line of thought: https://medium.com/@jamesallworth/brexi ... .3db24154t
There are many such lines of thought. None of them address the fact that the tiniest application of critical thinking would clearly demonstrate that a Brexit or Trump vote would do nothing to alleviate those problems and everything to exacerbate them.
The system isn't working for you so you protest vote for the very worst the system has to offer? That's what toddlers do.
If my life is going to be shit no matter what then everyone else's might as well be too.
Also what toddlers do.
Cras wrote:
Also what toddlers do.
Look at who you're talking to.
Cras wrote:
Doctor Glyndwr wrote:
I have a lot of time for this line of thought: https://medium.com/@jamesallworth/brexi ... .3db24154t
There are many such lines of thought. None of them address the fact that the tiniest application of critical thinking would clearly demonstrate that a Brexit or Trump vote would do nothing to alleviate those problems and everything to exacerbate them.
The system isn't working for you so you protest vote for the very worst the system has to offer? That's what toddlers do.
Curiosity wrote:
I read an interesting article that I cannot find at the moment. It used data to control for loads of variables to see things about Trump/Brexit. It seemed to find that the economy isn't the biggest deal. Immigration and authoritarianism are far more important than the actual effect of these things. By far the biggest split between Trump/Brexit and those opposed was on the question:
"Do you believe it is more important for a child to be considerate, or respectful of authority".
That caused an absolute chasm in difference of response.More people who voted Clinton and voted Remain listed the economy as a concern than those for Trump and Brexit, whose top concerns were immigration and terrorism.
"Do you believe it is more important for a child to be considerate, or respectful of authority".
That caused an absolute chasm in difference of response.More people who voted Clinton and voted Remain listed the economy as a concern than those for Trump and Brexit, whose top concerns were immigration and terrorism.
It depends how it was phrased though. When someone says "the economy" a lot of people see that as something abstract, something that doesn't really affect them. And in many ways a lot of them are right as Gaywood's graph there shows.
Wow, this is good too: http://www.lrb.co.uk/blog/2016/11/10/ad ... ment-14829
... Ah yes, talking of calling people out when they're spouting crap, a fine opportunity now presents itself. In a word, what a load of complete bollocks that piece is.
Here's an excerpt:
Sorted!
Oh wait, apparently the author has issues with those who have "benefitted"...
Righhhht. It's the usual "the top 1% get EVERYTHING, the rest get NOTHING" grievance-monkey narrative bollocks, then. Except - even by their own bloody graph which states that the middle rump 40%-80% affluence group's real terms household income has gone up between 20%-40% since '79, i.e. about a third, which is shitloads - it is categorically not the case, or even anything like it. At all.
In other words, the premise of the entire piece is flawed - demonstrably so even by its own presented data - and so surely fails even the most cursory scrutiny.
Trouble is, though, and as I've been saying, objective scrutiny and healthy scepticism are hard to find among the ranks of the deluded, the thickoes, the axe-grinding grievance monkeys, those clinging onto age-old beliefs and/or the absurdly partisan... and the new media (Twitter etc.) provides an easy conduit for punting around piss poor zoomer-fodder like this, and vastly more besides. For me at least, it is actually *this* syndrome that's the issue: a refusal to confront (or even acknowledge) the truth, because post-truth politics sounds so much more comforting, and all with the minimum of effort (e.g. any reliance on actual, pesky basis in fact). Just tell 'em what they want to hear; propagandists rejoice.
This syndrome is true of many political spheres of late, but none moreso than in matters of Nationalism (Brexit - and even Trump - included). Frankly, it's all enough to make me *puke*.
Here's an excerpt:
Quote:
Structurally, there’s been plenty of economic growth inside the U.S. — vastly increasing the pile of money to be divided.
Sorted!
Oh wait, apparently the author has issues with those who have "benefitted"...
Quote:
But these charts also hint at who the players are in the game. The first player consists of those people inside the U.S. and U.K. who have benefitted from globalization and trade: the “elites”, derisively referred to as “the 1%”.
And the second player? That’s everyone inside the United States and the United Kingdom who aren’t in those upper income echelons. They’re all the lines in the second chart that aren’t going up.
These folks are seeing the pile of money in the game growing ever bigger. And they’re also watching on, as the other player keeps an ever-larger share of that pile for themselves.
And the second player? That’s everyone inside the United States and the United Kingdom who aren’t in those upper income echelons. They’re all the lines in the second chart that aren’t going up.
These folks are seeing the pile of money in the game growing ever bigger. And they’re also watching on, as the other player keeps an ever-larger share of that pile for themselves.
Righhhht. It's the usual "the top 1% get EVERYTHING, the rest get NOTHING" grievance-monkey narrative bollocks, then. Except - even by their own bloody graph which states that the middle rump 40%-80% affluence group's real terms household income has gone up between 20%-40% since '79, i.e. about a third, which is shitloads - it is categorically not the case, or even anything like it. At all.
In other words, the premise of the entire piece is flawed - demonstrably so even by its own presented data - and so surely fails even the most cursory scrutiny.
Trouble is, though, and as I've been saying, objective scrutiny and healthy scepticism are hard to find among the ranks of the deluded, the thickoes, the axe-grinding grievance monkeys, those clinging onto age-old beliefs and/or the absurdly partisan... and the new media (Twitter etc.) provides an easy conduit for punting around piss poor zoomer-fodder like this, and vastly more besides. For me at least, it is actually *this* syndrome that's the issue: a refusal to confront (or even acknowledge) the truth, because post-truth politics sounds so much more comforting, and all with the minimum of effort (e.g. any reliance on actual, pesky basis in fact). Just tell 'em what they want to hear; propagandists rejoice.
This syndrome is true of many political spheres of late, but none moreso than in matters of Nationalism (Brexit - and even Trump - included). Frankly, it's all enough to make me *puke*.
Speaking of which, bloody disgrace the BBC giving bloody Le Pen such a platform at all, let alone on Rememberance Sunday. I am aghast and beyond appalled at this.
While I agree, Cavey, is she really saying anything that different than my President-Elect?
*crawls back into the foetal position*
*crawls back into the foetal position*
I see that all the leading UKIP players turned down the Cenotaph to celebrate with Trump. They're realising that they can bash the nationalist drum whilst acting in precisely the opposite way, and for some reason none of their supporters give a shit.
Remember the crap Corbyn got even when he DID attend remembrance services? Now Farage et al don't even show up and the fucking nationalist brigade will still praise him to the hilt.
Remember the crap Corbyn got even when he DID attend remembrance services? Now Farage et al don't even show up and the fucking nationalist brigade will still praise him to the hilt.
Peter St. John wrote:
While I agree, Cavey, is she really saying anything that different than my President-Elect?
*crawls back into the foetal position*
*crawls back into the foetal position*
I don't know Peter; I can't bring myself to tune in to find out.
Commiserations btw. Scary times.
Page 147 of 289 [ 14415 posts ]