The Current Events, News, and Politics Thread
07-20-2018, 12:19 PM
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,490
Total Cats: 4,079
I actually I support this, because i love being rich, unethical, and part of the violent mob:
At a recent speech in South Africa, former President Barack Obama criticized wealth inequality, saying those who have more money should share their earnings with the less fortunate.
...
After the speech calling for rich people to get smaller houses, Obama traveled back to America and to his $8.1 million eight-bedroom, nine-and-a-half bathroom mansion in one of the wealthiest neighborhoods in the world.
...
After the speech calling for rich people to get smaller houses, Obama traveled back to America and to his $8.1 million eight-bedroom, nine-and-a-half bathroom mansion in one of the wealthiest neighborhoods in the world.
A University of Texas-Austin student was forced to reflect on a film about toxic masculinity after a Title IX investigation found him guilty of harassment based on a non-criminal standard of evidence.
The student was assigned to watch "The Mask You Live In" and write a "reflection paper" explaining how the film influenced his understanding of masculinity and what steps he will take to encourage "healthy" masculinity in society.
The student was assigned to watch "The Mask You Live In" and write a "reflection paper" explaining how the film influenced his understanding of masculinity and what steps he will take to encourage "healthy" masculinity in society.
People chant [Black Power] as they burn a U.S. flag outside the Los Angeles office of U.S. Rep. Maxine Waters, Thursday, July 19, 2018, in Los Angeles
Reply
0
0
07-20-2018, 03:58 PM
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,490
Total Cats: 4,079
hey guys, if you dont want to lose your job, dont tweet the following:
“Expendables is so manly I fucked the **** out of the ***** boy next to me,” the Disney director writes in one tweet.
“The best thing about being raped is when you’re done being raped and it’s like ‘whew this feels great, not being raped!’” he tweeted in 2009.
“I remember my first NAMBLA meeting. It was the first time I felt ok being who I am,” he tweeted, referring to NAMBLA, a group seeking to make sex with minors legal.
“I’m doing a big Hollywood film adaptation of The Giving Tree with a happy ending — the tree grows back and gives the kid a *******,” he tweeted in 2011.
TheWrap also included an apparent screen grab of 16 of Gunn’s tweets tweeted out by Jack Posobiec:
“I like it when little boys touch me in my silly place,” Gunn tweeted in 2009.
“The Hardy Boys and the Mystery of What It Feels Like When Uncle Bernie Fists Me,” reads another.
“‘Eagle Snatches Kid’ is what I call it when I get lucky,” reads a 2012 tweet.
“The best thing about being raped is when you’re done being raped and it’s like ‘whew this feels great, not being raped!’” he tweeted in 2009.
“I remember my first NAMBLA meeting. It was the first time I felt ok being who I am,” he tweeted, referring to NAMBLA, a group seeking to make sex with minors legal.
“I’m doing a big Hollywood film adaptation of The Giving Tree with a happy ending — the tree grows back and gives the kid a *******,” he tweeted in 2011.
TheWrap also included an apparent screen grab of 16 of Gunn’s tweets tweeted out by Jack Posobiec:
“I like it when little boys touch me in my silly place,” Gunn tweeted in 2009.
“The Hardy Boys and the Mystery of What It Feels Like When Uncle Bernie Fists Me,” reads another.
“‘Eagle Snatches Kid’ is what I call it when I get lucky,” reads a 2012 tweet.
Reply
0
0
07-20-2018, 04:28 PM
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 790
Total Cats: 188
I thought that this article was a well-articulated version of some of the views that I expressed above:
"The scenario that, to my mind, makes the most sense of the given facts and requires the fewest fantastical leaps is that, a decade or so ago, Trump, naïve, covetous, and struggling for cash, may have laundered money for a business partner from the former Soviet Union or engaged in some other financial crime. This placed him, unawares, squarely within sistema, where he remained, conducting business with other members of a handful of overlapping Central Asian networks. Had he never sought the Presidency, he may never have had to come to terms with these decisions. But now he is much like everyone else in sistema. He fears there is kompromat out there—maybe a lot of it—but he doesn’t know precisely what it is, who has it, or what might set them off."
https://www.newyorker.com/news-desk/...ocial_facebook
"The scenario that, to my mind, makes the most sense of the given facts and requires the fewest fantastical leaps is that, a decade or so ago, Trump, naïve, covetous, and struggling for cash, may have laundered money for a business partner from the former Soviet Union or engaged in some other financial crime. This placed him, unawares, squarely within sistema, where he remained, conducting business with other members of a handful of overlapping Central Asian networks. Had he never sought the Presidency, he may never have had to come to terms with these decisions. But now he is much like everyone else in sistema. He fears there is kompromat out there—maybe a lot of it—but he doesn’t know precisely what it is, who has it, or what might set them off."
https://www.newyorker.com/news-desk/...ocial_facebook
Reply
0
0
07-20-2018, 07:13 PM
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,019
Total Cats: 6,587
In a way, this thread reminds me of having a conversation with my mother. She's a very stereotypical midwestern evangelical protestant Christian. And in her mind, evidence of the hand of God is everywhere. She sees God's influence because it's what she believes in, and what she wants to see. No amount of evidence about geology, cosmology, hydrodynamics, biology, etc., will convince her that God didn't create the whole universe in one week, about six thousand years ago. And when faced with scientifically-sound evidence to the contrary, she has the ultimate "get out of logic free" card: "That's just the way God made it."
A lot of people internalize their political alignment in the same way my mother internalizes her religion.
A person who is a true believer in the Republican faith will look at something like Hillary's email server and see the tip of an iceburg which leads all the way down to conspiracy, fraud and treason. (Maybe she's just not very technologically literate.)
A person who is a member of the Church of Clinton (or the New Reformed Sanders Congregation) look at Trump and they see Nazism, money-laundering, and collusion with an enemy nation. (Maybe he's just an egotistical manipulator.)
I'm not going to change either of their minds, just as I'm never going to convince my mother it's unlikely that two of every single species of animal on the entire face of the earth all converged on a single point somewhere in the middle east and took a 40 day boat ride, nor dispel her of the belief that the fact that the Influenza virus mutates every year, and that bacteria develop resistance to antibiotics over time which is then passed down to the next generation of bacteria, isn't the same as evolution.
It's the same with those who adhere tightly to political mindsets. There's always one more "Well, what if such-and-such," or "If you assume that X and Y and Z all happened, then it makes perfect sense!" The number of ways to justify a hypothetical with assumptions are endless, whereas it is, in such cases, often impossible to prove that something didn't happen.
Reply
0
0
07-20-2018, 09:42 PM
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 790
Total Cats: 188
To a believer, no proof is needed. To a skeptic, no proof is enough.
I think the media on both sides does a pretty good job of blurring the lines between opinion pieces and actual news. That makes it pretty easy for people to gather “data” to support their views.
At any rate, I’m not a member of any church, religious or political. Many people think that it’s equally fantastical to believe that Trump is not compromised in some way as it pertains to Putin and Russia, based on available facts and recent behavior. If there’s a plausible explanation for why a guy who consistenly picks fights with our allies would slobber our biggest global adversary’s **** and roll over on his own country and intelligence community in front of the whole world, I’d be glad to hear it. Even his supporters appear to be silent on the subject.
I think the media on both sides does a pretty good job of blurring the lines between opinion pieces and actual news. That makes it pretty easy for people to gather “data” to support their views.
At any rate, I’m not a member of any church, religious or political. Many people think that it’s equally fantastical to believe that Trump is not compromised in some way as it pertains to Putin and Russia, based on available facts and recent behavior. If there’s a plausible explanation for why a guy who consistenly picks fights with our allies would slobber our biggest global adversary’s **** and roll over on his own country and intelligence community in front of the whole world, I’d be glad to hear it. Even his supporters appear to be silent on the subject.
Last edited by Schroedinger; 07-20-2018 at 10:05 PM.
Reply
0
0
07-21-2018, 08:25 AM
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,490
Total Cats: 4,079
“The 1980s are calling, they want their foreign policy back. The cold war has been over for 20 years!”
Schroedinger HAS IT BACKWARDS ABOUT WHO’S BEEN SOFT ON RUSSIA
By Kevin Ryan
In a wide ranging interview on Russian TV in 2010, then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton summed up the Obama administration’s view of Russia.
“We want very much to have a strong Russia because a strong, competent, prosperous, stable Russia is, we think, in the interests of the world.”
“I think one of the best changes that each of us could entertain is looking toward the future instead of constantly in the rearview mirror. One of the fears that I hear from Russians is that somehow the United States wants Russia to be weak. That could not be farther from the truth. Our goal is to help strengthen Russia.”
“When we look at the threats in the world today, we don’t see a threat from Russia, and we hope Russia doesn’t see a threat from us.”
“Honestly, we don’t see Russia as a threat. We believe that those days are behind us.”
And it wasn’t just her. President Obama famously chastised 2012 Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney’s assertion that Russia was America’s biggest geopolitical foe. “The 1980s are calling, they want their foreign policy back. The cold war has been over for 20 years!”
Obama was also caught on an open mic telling the Russian president that he’d have “more flexibility after the election” to cancel a missile shield the U.S. had been setting up in Poland which Russia objected to. Sure enough, shortly after the election, Obama did just that, to the anger of many U.S. allies in eastern Europe.
Less than a year later, Russia invaded Ukraine. Not only did the Obama administration do next to nothing to stop Russia, it even refused to enact a 2014 law that authorized weapons sales to Ukraine.
Indeed it wasn’t until Donald Trump took office that the U.S. finally began supplying weapons to Ukraine via the Ukraine Freedom Support Act.
And that’s not all the new president has done. Despite critics claiming he is soft on Russia, President Trump has been far tougher on Russia than the last administration. So far, the United States under President Trump has:
“The United States stands ready to continue supporting Ukraine’s defense and security sector reforms to bolster Ukraine’s ability to defend its territorial integrity,” a defense department spokeswoman said in making the announcement.
That’s a far cry from the Obama administration’s inaction on Ukraine.
By Kevin Ryan
In a wide ranging interview on Russian TV in 2010, then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton summed up the Obama administration’s view of Russia.
“We want very much to have a strong Russia because a strong, competent, prosperous, stable Russia is, we think, in the interests of the world.”
“I think one of the best changes that each of us could entertain is looking toward the future instead of constantly in the rearview mirror. One of the fears that I hear from Russians is that somehow the United States wants Russia to be weak. That could not be farther from the truth. Our goal is to help strengthen Russia.”
“When we look at the threats in the world today, we don’t see a threat from Russia, and we hope Russia doesn’t see a threat from us.”
“Honestly, we don’t see Russia as a threat. We believe that those days are behind us.”
And it wasn’t just her. President Obama famously chastised 2012 Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney’s assertion that Russia was America’s biggest geopolitical foe. “The 1980s are calling, they want their foreign policy back. The cold war has been over for 20 years!”
Obama was also caught on an open mic telling the Russian president that he’d have “more flexibility after the election” to cancel a missile shield the U.S. had been setting up in Poland which Russia objected to. Sure enough, shortly after the election, Obama did just that, to the anger of many U.S. allies in eastern Europe.
Less than a year later, Russia invaded Ukraine. Not only did the Obama administration do next to nothing to stop Russia, it even refused to enact a 2014 law that authorized weapons sales to Ukraine.
Indeed it wasn’t until Donald Trump took office that the U.S. finally began supplying weapons to Ukraine via the Ukraine Freedom Support Act.
And that’s not all the new president has done. Despite critics claiming he is soft on Russia, President Trump has been far tougher on Russia than the last administration. So far, the United States under President Trump has:
- Imposed new sanctions on Russia for violating the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty: https://www.politico.com/…/trump-russia-sanctions-cold-war-…
- Imposed sanctions targeting any country trading with Russia’s defense and intelligence sectors as punishment for the annexation of Crimea, involvement in the Syrian civil war, and meddling in the 2016 U.S. presidential election: https://www.reuters.com/…/some-u-s-allies-caught-in-crossfi…
- Expelled 60 Russian diplomats after the chemical attack in England, more than any other country, including the U.K.: https://www.washingtonpost.com/…/8ada3d8e-30f0-11e8-8bdd-cd…
- Imposed sanctions on Russian oligarchs in response to the U.K. nerve agent attack: https://www.nytimes.com/…/…/russian-oligarchs-sanctions.html
- Got NATO countries to increase defense spending by hundreds of billions of dollars: https://www.bloomberg.com/…/nato-members-post-new-defense-s…
- Twice bombed Putin’s ally Syria: http://www.latimes.com/…/la-na-pol-trump-syria-attack-20180…
- Engaged a force of Russian mercenaries in Syria, killing dozens of Russians and hundreds of pro-Syria troops: https://www.nytimes.com/…/american-commandos-russian-mercen…
- Conducted military exercises with the Ukrainian militaries involving US Navy warships, sailors, and Marines: https://www.cnn.com/…/p…/us-defensive-aid-ukraine/index.html
- Sold $47 million worth of advanced anti-tank missiles to Ukraine: https://www.defensenews.com/…/ukraine-officially-cleared-t…/
“The United States stands ready to continue supporting Ukraine’s defense and security sector reforms to bolster Ukraine’s ability to defend its territorial integrity,” a defense department spokeswoman said in making the announcement.
That’s a far cry from the Obama administration’s inaction on Ukraine.
related topics: Uranium One, Crimea
Last edited by Braineack; 07-21-2018 at 08:43 AM.
Reply
0
0
07-21-2018, 08:58 AM
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Atlanta
Posts: 790
Total Cats: 188
I’m struggling to understand your position on this. Is it that:
1) Russia is actually not a threat to US interests; or
2) Russia is a threat to US interests, and Hillary/Obama underestimated it.
If #2, then we agree.
1) Russia is actually not a threat to US interests; or
2) Russia is a threat to US interests, and Hillary/Obama underestimated it.
If #2, then we agree.
Reply
0
0
07-21-2018, 09:28 AM
Senior Member
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Hollywood, FL
Posts: 807
Total Cats: 163
And while I believe myself to be atheist, I tend to lean more towards the belief that there is a great big bearded guy in the sky (or many of them, and did I just assume their gender?) pulling the strings as opposed to some big bang 14 billion years ago and all by chance we ended up here.
Am I an idiot for thinking this way? Yes I am, and no amount of proof that I am NOT an idiot will change my mind!
Reply
0
0
07-21-2018, 09:58 AM
Boost Czar
Thread Starter
iTrader: (62)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 79,490
Total Cats: 4,079
I'm in the #3 camp. Russia is our enemy, the last administration (and disciples) did not believe that, but only when convenient.
Last edited by Braineack; 07-21-2018 at 10:25 AM.
Reply
0
0
07-21-2018, 10:03 AM
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago. (The less-murder part.)
Posts: 33,019
Total Cats: 6,587
Hey Joe, what's dark matter? Not a serious question.
And while I believe myself to be atheist, I tend to lean more towards the belief that there is a great big bearded guy in the sky (or many of them, and did I just assume their gender?) pulling the strings as opposed to some big bang 14 billion years ago and all by chance we ended up here.
Am I an idiot for thinking this way? Yes I am, and no amount of proof that I am NOT an idiot will change my mind!
And while I believe myself to be atheist, I tend to lean more towards the belief that there is a great big bearded guy in the sky (or many of them, and did I just assume their gender?) pulling the strings as opposed to some big bang 14 billion years ago and all by chance we ended up here.
Am I an idiot for thinking this way? Yes I am, and no amount of proof that I am NOT an idiot will change my mind!
I totally get you, man.
I'd describe myself as weakly agnostic. I see no direct evidence that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created a midgit and a tree (and plenty of evidence to contradict this.) But I also acknowledge that there is a lot of mysterious **** out there in the universe, to which the scientific community gives reassuring names like "dark matter" to pretend that they have some kind of clue as to why the rate of expansion of the universe appears to be accelerating from our point of view. As I don't even begin to comprehend this **** (and, truth be told, nobody including Carl Sagan and Steven Hawking really did either), I can't rule out the possibility that something "else" is out there, possibly one or more sapient beings which exist in a state that is imperceptible to us. Clarke's third law is that "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." I propose a corollary, which is that "Any sufficiently complex natural phenomenon is indistinguishable from God."
Does this mean that I believe that there's some race of super-intelligent aliens out there who are manipulating life on Earth? No. It just means that there's a lot of weird stuff in the universe that nobody understands, and it would be both foolish and arrogant to claim that I have a concrete answer to any of the big "where did we come from, and why are we here" type questions.
To me, this point of view is kind of centrist and open-minded. This would be in contrast to:
A: Religious people who hold the extremist position that God or Gods absolutely exist, and behave(s) according to what's written in some specific book (be it the Bible, the Qur'an, the Torah, the Bhagavad Gita, or whatever.)
B: Atheists who hold the extremist position that nothing God-like can possibly exist, and that anyone who believes otherwise is a fool.
When speaking with my mother, I once put forth an idea which could be summarized as "How can we know that God did not use a process similar to evolution in the course of creating all life on earth?" To this was given an answer along the lines of "Because that's not in the bible."
So goeth discussions with people who are so deeply invested in a certain political philosophy that they cannot conceive of the notion that their belief is not both infallible (free of error) and all-encompassing (nothing which is not in the belief system can be true.) Examples here would be:
- Hardcore Trump supporters
- Hardcore Clinton supporters
- Socialists
Reply
0
0
