Failing every stage? They pretty much only controlled the fucking Presidential office and he was opposed by the House and Senate for his entire time in office. How can he be expected to do his job when he literally became the Right-Wing boogy man for 8 fucking years.
Dems controlled the Presidency and both houses of Congress from 2008 to 2011. The fact that Democrats have lost power in both houses of Congress as time went on showed that the public wasn't happy with what they were doing.
The funniest thing about all of this is that Democrats screwed themselves so hard. The Biden Rule, the Nuclear option, the Disposition Matrix, they seriously thought Hillary would come in and clinch everything.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday scheduled oral arguments in a major dispute on transgender rights for March 28, when the U.S. Senate is set to be in the midst of a political fight over President Donald Trump's nominee to a vacant seat on the bench.
By March, the Republican-controlled U.S. Senate is likely to be deliberating on whether to approve Neil Gorsuch, a conservative federal appeals court judge from Colorado, to the court. Where Gorsuch stands on social issues like transgender rights is likely to be a much-discussed question during the confirmation process.
Republicans are hoping the Senate Judiciary Committee holds hearings and votes on the nomination by late March, paving the way for a vote in the full Senate the first week of April, before the chamber begins a two week spring recess, according to Senate aides.
…
At the heart of the case is the question of whether transgender people are covered by a ban on gender discrimination in education under federal law. The administration of former President Barack Obama said it was. The Trump administration has not yet weighed in.
Until the Senate approves a nominee, the court remains one justice short following the February death of Antonin Scalia, which left it with four conservatives and four liberals. That raises the possibility of a 4-4 ruling that would leave in place the decision favoring Grimm by the Richmond-based 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. A 4-4 ruling would set no nationwide legal precedent. It is also possible that the court could rehear the case if Gorsuch is confirmed.
Glad to finally have a date for the case. Interesting that Gorsuch won't be on the bench. I hope it won't be reheard if Gorsuch is confirmed after the fact, because that might end reversing a decision pretty quickly.
@Rivers
!f it's split 4-4, I do hope it's reheard (as I do with most of the 4-4 decisions). SCOTUS needs to clarify the law for all the federal courts to follow. Otherwise, there could be a split and while the courts under the 4th Circuit may back transgender rights, the 5th Circuit (generally considered the most conservative) might decide the opposite.
Basilius wrote:
Failing every stage? They pretty much only controlled the fucking Presidential office and he was opposed by the House and Senate for his entire time in office. How can he be expected to do his job when he literally became the Right-Wing boogy man for 8 fucking years.
They had a fucking super majority and they pissed it away. They had every opportunity to completely change how this country was going and they decided to stay the course. The republicans could have only done 1 thing, stalled. Yet stalling was enough for the dems to completely flounder, flop, and turn on one another, despite their advantages for two years straight.
This is coming from a person who was fully on the side of the democrats and the left back in 2008. They literally pissed away all of their good faith by refusing to stand their grounds on any issue in the face of a party whose only power was to stamp their feet and try to wait their opponents out.
This is coming from a person who was fully on the side of the democrats and the left back in 2008. They literally pissed away all of their good faith by refusing to stand their grounds on any issue in the face of a party whose only power was to stamp their feet and try to wait their opponents out.
A lot of liberals right now (especially those like the "berniecrats") are having the same complaints right now. I haven't looked a lot into it but I've seen people upset over the lack of Democrat opposition to Trump's cabinet picks, and in general the lack of opposition at all.
I mean, you have stuff like the Women's March going on with a ton of participants, and as far as I've heard there's nothing even close to that level happening in Congress. It looks like they're just… rolling over.
fuck nancy "no new direction" pelosi
I wonder if this is part of a strategy to go further right in the belief that more people will vote for them.
Last edited Feb 03, 2017 at 07:27PM EST
Mom Rivers wrote:
This is coming from a person who was fully on the side of the democrats and the left back in 2008. They literally pissed away all of their good faith by refusing to stand their grounds on any issue in the face of a party whose only power was to stamp their feet and try to wait their opponents out.
A lot of liberals right now (especially those like the "berniecrats") are having the same complaints right now. I haven't looked a lot into it but I've seen people upset over the lack of Democrat opposition to Trump's cabinet picks, and in general the lack of opposition at all.
I mean, you have stuff like the Women's March going on with a ton of participants, and as far as I've heard there's nothing even close to that level happening in Congress. It looks like they're just… rolling over.
fuck nancy "no new direction" pelosi
I wonder if this is part of a strategy to go further right in the belief that more people will vote for them.
Well, here's what Democrats should do and what they are actually doing. You have to consider that, from Obama to now, they've lost
The Presidency
The Senate
The House
The Supreme Court (Ginsburg is ready to kick the bucket)
Several Governorships
Many state legislature seats.
This, along with the 2018 midterms looking horrible for the Democrats, would have one think that Democrats should take a step back, look at why they lost this election, and try to cater to the voting block that didn't come through for them at the end: Blue Collar workers in the rust belt. They need to try and survive until 2020, otherwise they may lose the ability to be a nationally competitive party.
This is what they should be doing. Unfortunately, what they're actually doing appears to be doubling down on the identity politics that has made their party so poisonous to begin with. Their actions reflect this thinking, with them boycotting committee votes and joining protests as opposed to speaking with other members of government and trying to make deals with them like rational human beings. For whatever reason, it seems to me like the masters of the DNC feel that the future of the party lies in pandering to minorities at the express exclusion of whites.
It certainly doesn't help that they don't appear to have any new blood in the party. The leadership is aging, with the average age of a Democratic house leader being 64, while its only 53 for Republicans.
Maybe the party is suicidal? Or they're huffing paint.
I understand voiding the program queues so make reviewing their processes easier, but I don't understand why you would retroactively revoke visas you gave to people who were given them. Bottlecapping and subsequently temp shelving the programs would be sufficient.
I know that Obama's immigrant amnesty EO got taken all the way to the SCOTUS, and a dispute over an EO isn't anything new, but watching this in real time, with all the chaos ensuing and the levying of accusations of "unconstitutionality" (I thought it was the right of any country, not just the U.S., to decide which aliens come, stay, or are prevented from entering), really makes me wish that this order was structured to be executed more properly than it was. Like, would it have killed them to have waited a day so that airlines would be able to read what's in the bloody thing?
But, hey, it gives Democrats space to posture. No really, "King Trump I" when?
>>HOUSTON -- They gathered after nightfall at an undisclosed location downtown.
>>People representing more than a half-dozen protest groups that are set to march and rally here Super Bowl weekend met to coordinate their efforts -- in a way New England Patriots coach Bill Belichick would have appreciated. That is to say, the protesters discussed using encrypted communication that would keep opponents from intercepting their messages.
>>It was so secretive Tuesday night, not all of the group representatives got the full game plan, said Blake Stroud, who created a group called #ResistHouston to connect the protesters and provided USA TODAY Sports with an account of the meeting.
>>“I guess they’re going for the element of surprise,’’ he said.
>>Groups and community members involved thus far include members of the following groups: Black Lives Matter, socialists, abolitionists, communists, native Americans, Muslims, Jews, Hispanics, LGBT community members and the local Democratic party. Also planning to be on the scene: Opponents of circumcision. For real.
>>“We are seeing the petty differences between our groups matter less than what we agree on,’’ said Amy Zachmeyer, lead organizer for the Houston chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America.
>trying to get in the way of the Superb Owl
>expecting much of America to put up with it
This is going to fall apart pretty quickly i imagine. When you bring a bunch of different ideologies together, conflict is inevitable. Atheists and Muslims, as well as staunch muslims and staunch religious types found in many black activists groups, will clash wjth lgbt and jewish members. Not to mention the conflict between latino and african American communities which i could see boiling up if they're grouped next to each other.
This is going to be a shit show if not a riot, especially if the antifa or black block get involved, which you know they will.
Any reason why they are protesting he Super Bowl. or is it simply because its the most popular event in America?
Someone should do a chart showing who's who and who hates who. And who's gonna cause the most chaos.
They want a spotlight on them when they bravely stride through "enemy" territory. Except that they're doing this in Houston, Texas. I don't think they quite realise that their spotlight comes with a few thousand targeting reticules if they push too hard.
Speaking of guns, I found another thing in the futureology subreddit. I thought it was a technological thing but it is actually rather relevant due to the gun debate. An MIT freshman is designing a smart gun.
I learned form the comments and the article a few things.
>New Jersey has a law that forces everyone to buy only smart guns if they are on the market and stay there for 3 years. The market doesn't have to be in NJ. But there is a possibility for the law to be repealed, if the NRA doesn't interfere with the development of "smart guns" like this.
>The technology might not be useful for the defensive side of guns, as the ease of use and maintenance would be lessened by the use of the use of electronics
>Although understandable, The backstory of the guy with this idea, Kai Kloepfer, gives the thing some virtuesignaling vibes. And he apparently ignored advice by a man in the military.
>All things considered this doesn't infringe on the Right to bear Arms…technicality speaking. But it does make things harder for them to be used. This would be a double edge sword because it would prevent kids and thieves from using the guns. On the other hand, besides my second point, hackers and people who can brute force passwords could circumvent the locks, and the nature of smart guns would do nothing to prevent their use in suicides.
>Fingerprint locks are also problematic since some people wear gloves, or get their hands wet.
>People have been attempting this since the 90s, and the attempts left some concerns that made it unviable.
>Apparently the article had had two extra digits in their "yearly gun death" number.
What do you think? Is this a bad idea or a good idea?
Last edited Feb 05, 2017 at 05:13AM EST
What do you think? Is this a bad idea or a good idea?
I think it's rather pointless idea. Even if said gun works and manages to become the only store sold on shelves (which are two very big ifs mind you) there are still plenty of guns available that I could buy online or from my neighbor.
But it does make things harder for them to be used.
That's also why I think it won't ever be commerically viable. If you are say an individual who owns 1 handgun for self-defense, you ABSOLUTELY DO NOT want that thing to take any longer to set up than the second you have to take to switch the safety off. The need for the gun to be ready at any moment is vital, and adding another step which is viable to fail is worrying. Which brings me to:
as the ease of use and maintenance would be lessened by the use of the use of electronics
When in the case of modern history has adding more parts to a design ever made it require less maintenance? I am SEVERELY dubious of such a claim. If this is to become commercially viable at all it needs to be 110% reliable. A single hardware failure on behalf of the gun will kill sales potential imo.
It'll only be viable once gene-locking/scanning is made cheap.
Can't wait for the gun to require a trip to the gunsmith or store of purchase and an 800 dollar charge to fix a simple jam, cause the safety features lock the mechanics down and make it impossible for one to do self repairs.
I'd assume the abolitionists and the local Democratic Party won't see eye to eye.
MorningSTAR – The Dawn said:
Is this a bad idea or a good idea?
Terrible idea. I have a fingerprint scanner on my laptop and there's times when I have to reswipe it four or five times before it finally works. If I have to swipe my finger multiple times on a gun to get it to work, I'm probably already dead.
>even charges
My laptop's battery died after four years. I wouldn't want my gun's to suddenly go out on me or my forgetfulness be the literal death of me.
I also find it funny they reference passwords--what with the DNC hack, the Yahoo hack, the Target hack, etc. Simplicity will always be best when it comes to guns.
It will be resolved before Gorsuch is confirmed.
Reading legal opinions, the 9th CC ruling didn't have much supporting case law cited, while the favorable ruling coming out of Boston was very detailed and more substantial.
I know I've been a bit of a nut about this ban moratorium, but bear with me.
How is this order going to be argued in the SCOTUS?
Everyone keeps saying that it's unconstitutional and/or illegal, but the OLC said it wasn't and the AG admitted it wasn't-- however begrudgingly. Moreover, he did state a purpose for the act of barring foreign nationals-- to allow a better environment to review and revise their vetting procedures.
However, it's obvious that the order-- especially in how it was implented-- caused a lot of distress for people coming to/from these countries (especially in the case of students), and then there's the matter of provisionally revoking visas already issued. And so far, in federal courts, stuff like this has been able to convince judges to limit the order, even to the point that it's stayed entirely. But when it goes to the SCOTUS, would this be a reasonable defense, given that the SCOTUS determines constitutionality and other fundamental principles?
Perhaps something damning about the EO is how it indefinitely places a ban on Syrian refugees, which contravenes the Geneva Convention. You could argue that the moratorium (I'm going to use this word now-- much more fitting) on refugees at all would also contravene the Convention, though for all other refugees, it was specified that they wouldn't be let in strictly for the duration of the moratorium.
There's talk from detractors and surrogates like Giuliani alike about how this was intended as a "Muslim" ban, but I'm not sure if this would hold up in court considering the actual structure of the EO. Even down to the provision for preference of religious persecution cases, it would appear that it doesn't favor any particular religion-- even Christianity, for that matter, because it's a country-relative provision. I'm not sure if you could suppose that a "Muslim" ban was the intent in spite of the majority of Muslim countries not being affected. Along those lines, there's also been a discussion by judges about the objective need for this order-- beyond what the President states-- but are judges in the proper decision to make this determination, especially if they or the plantiffs aren't privy to potential information only the executives have?
It would appear that all rulings against the order thus far were more concerned about the impact of the order on the plantiffs rather than the lawfulness of the order itself, and acted accordingly in the interests of the plantiffs-- making their words into rulings that limited the capacity of the order was something that had to be done because they had no power by themselves to make exceptions for specifically the plantiffs. This is conjecture, though.
I'll be sorely disappointed if the administration-- not necessarily out of a want for this order, but rather out of a perceived lack of legal know-how-- if they don't pull the "a country has a right to allow, restrict, or deny foreign nationals as it sees fit" card, with the Fong Yue Ting case as a buttress, to boot.
But I'm figuring that, given the alignments of the SCOTUS justices as I understand them, there's very possibly going to be a tie, implying no judgment, and so the Washington judge's verdict would stand. In fact, I wonder how the justices would make their judgements-- or if they would do so regardless of the actual determined lawfulness and constitutionality of the order.
If the SCOTUS strikes down the order, that'd be one thing, but if they do so on the basis of a determined "religious animus"-- regardless of how that isn't portrayed in the order-- that would probably kill Trump's credibility. Bigly. And he already isn't liked that much in even his own assumed party.
I honestly am interested in how this will turn out. If the order gets struck down, I really want it to be strictly because it literally contravened law and/or the Constitution, in spite of previous executive determination. If it doesn't, I would still want that they bottlecap applications, process what they have, and then go on with what they intended to do.
Well, that's a thing.
On the guns:
Given the situations under which one would need to fire their gun fast, and how unreliable fingerprint scanning is-- particularly under certain conditions, like if your hands are wet, or something-- this is probably a bad idea.
What do you think? Is this a bad idea or a good idea?
I think it's rather pointless idea. Even if said gun works and manages to become the only store sold on shelves (which are two very big ifs mind you) there are still plenty of guns available that I could buy online or from my neighbor.
But it does make things harder for them to be used.
That's also why I think it won't ever be commerically viable. If you are say an individual who owns 1 handgun for self-defense, you ABSOLUTELY DO NOT want that thing to take any longer to set up than the second you have to take to switch the safety off. The need for the gun to be ready at any moment is vital, and adding another step which is viable to fail is worrying. Which brings me to:
as the ease of use and maintenance would be lessened by the use of the use of electronics
When in the case of modern history has adding more parts to a design ever made it require less maintenance? I am SEVERELY dubious of such a claim. If this is to become commercially viable at all it needs to be 110% reliable. A single hardware failure on behalf of the gun will kill sales potential imo.
And that doesn't take into the possibility of electronic scrambling options that mess with the gun. Also, god help us if they are dumb enough to add wi-fi/remote control options. It will only open it up to hacking attacks. Have these designers considered will the gun work when the batteries runs out? Will they continue to work even in the crudest environments? (sandy deserts, swamp lands, etc.) What if there has a fault in the electronic parts? Can't fire the gun when you need it then? I think it's a generally a bad idea in the long run.
>Anti-Trump military coup now possible, says former DOD official Rosa Brooks.
…According to a hysterical and cherry-picking Obama loyalist. Yeah, no. The vast majority of them are loyal.
I hear that the Superbowl protests were low energy. Good. Their fire is dying in winter.
Now it is true a lot of the presidential election polls were wrong. Though it is pretty comical to say ANY negative polls about him are completely fake. Especially with all the rioting.
If you don't wanna try to figure out how to interpret that page: tl;dr this bill would allow groups who get tax money to discriminate against gay people without worries about getting tax money taken away if they think discrimination is the moral thing to do, and it passed the House. It's now being considered by a Senate committee.
News flash: gay people pay taxes too. If taxes are funding your organization, I can't approve any discrimination of any kind.
(The bill does do other things, but I'm far less worried, if at all, about those.)
If you don't wanna try to figure out how to interpret that page: tl;dr this bill would allow groups who get tax money to discriminate against gay people without worries about getting tax money taken away if they think discrimination is the moral thing to do, and it passed the House. It's now being considered by a Senate committee.
News flash: gay people pay taxes too. If taxes are funding your organization, I can't approve any discrimination of any kind.
(The bill does do other things, but I'm far less worried, if at all, about those.)
I would be worried about all those as the infamous HB2 was partially a smoke screen to push in some awful shit while people were up in arms about LGBT rights
Now it is true a lot of the presidential election polls were wrong. Though it is pretty comical to say ANY negative polls about him are completely fake. Especially with all the rioting.
Right, because all those riots are organic and completely unassociated with the activist groups which organize and pay for such riots.
CNN calling out fake news and defending opinion polling is rather rich, considering their recent history with both.
Colonel Sandor wrote:
Right, because all those riots are organic and completely unassociated with the activist groups which organize and pay for such riots.
CNN calling out fake news and defending opinion polling is rather rich, considering their recent history with both.
with the activist groups which organize and pay for such riots.
Are you saying people are paying people to riot? Link me to some things, boss.
As for fake news, I wonder why this is such a new thing and only for liberal news outlets? Maybe it's the fall of modern society.
Verbose wrote:
with the activist groups which organize and pay for such riots.
Are you saying people are paying people to riot? Link me to some things, boss.
As for fake news, I wonder why this is such a new thing and only for liberal news outlets? Maybe it's the fall of modern society.
Only for? As far as I recall the whole "Fake News" came about BY liberal news outlets, calling for ending Fake News that got Trump elected.
And there was a lot of fake news and disinformation that permeated the 2016 election. Largely from the Balkans.
So the whole concept and term of Fake News really exploded right after the election concluded.
However, with so many fake stories now spreading against Trump, that it's now being used by Trump to target liberal news outlets, who have actually reported fake news.
As click-bait and outrage journalism is spreading, and increasing destruction of traditional news outlets, we are seeing opportunities to use information as a weapon. With the internet having an explosion of alternative news outlets, which cater to echo chambers ideology, and a growing distrust of traditional news outlets as being guardians of truth, this is the inevitable. It is increasingly harder and harder to discern fake news from real news, and this has been transformed as an incredibly effective weapon by countries like Russia, which have extremely stringent control over their own domestic news consumption.
In one sense, it is great that alternative news sources are growing, because it breaks down the powerful position of being the fourth pillar of our government (being guardians of information). On the other hand, it is increasingly hard to separate fake news from real news, since all sides and ideologies have come to rely on it for $$$, or as a tool to undermine a country.
Personally, as far as international news is concerned, I tend to trust sources that are catered to the military or foreign policy experts. My logic is that those that are most likely to go on the ground and potentially die in that place would be the most interested in knowing the objective truth about the conflicts they may be part of.
I would be worried about all those as the infamous HB2 was partially a smoke screen to push in some awful shit while people were up in arms about LGBT rights
The law is a bit weird so I slightly misunderstood and slightly simplified.
This law applies to any religious organization, religious figure (e.g. clergy), or representative/employee/volunteer of either. Let's first make that clear.
Firstly, none of these are "required to participate in the solemnization of any marriage". Honestly I'm okay with that. As long as government officials still have to do it (and it looks like they do) w/e.
The second part is what worries me.
… no person shall be… subject to any penalty by [any part of Virginia's government], solely on account of such person's belief, speech, or action in accordance with a sincerely held religious belief or moral conviction that marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman.
(Person is defined by what I said earlier.)
No taking away tax exemption. No extra taxes. No fine. No nothing if someone is acting in accordance with that belief. Of course, in context, this includes the lovely "you're gay so fug off" scenario.
So, as an example: tax supported religious adoption agencies are allowed to deny gay couples a child through them, even if they are otherwise more well-set than another straight couple, and there can be no legal repercussions. This is despite the fact that that gay couple pays taxes that help fund this organization.
I have serious moral issues with this. If anyone refuses to pay taxes, they may end up getting prison time, especially if it's repeated. The idea of this tax money going to a service that would then be able to deny you service for exercising what has been decided by the Supreme Court to be a constitutional right is not acceptable.
Personally, as far as international news is concerned, I tend to trust sources that are catered to the military or foreign policy experts. My logic is that those that are most likely to go on the ground and potentially die in that place would be the most interested in knowing the objective truth about the conflicts they may be part of.
As I have stated previously, it's important to not to lump peaceful protesters in with rioters. But in this case whether such events are peaceful or violent is irrelevant, the larger point is some are financed and organized by activists and the DNC. They're not spontaneous, organic uprisings of individuals but rather coordinated agit-prop designed to manufacture and influence public opinion.
Clearly Trump, who won only 45.9% of the popular vote, is not going to have a 90% approval rating. Nor is an ongoing act surrounded in controversy going to reach such a mark.
But why should anyone believe a poll put out by CNN at this point? It is openly at war with Trump administration, appeared repeatedly in Wikileaks in a context which undermined its claims to impartiality and credibility, and was part of the piss poor pre-election polling it is now to defend.
If CNN wants to prove its polling has credibility, it should start reporting in a credible way. Such as not allowing Robert Reich's ludicrous charge that right-wing activists framed leftists by secretly being behind the UCB protests to go unchallenged. And I say this not so much to defend Trump, but to point out that if and when his administration does something really bad, there needs to be a legitimate and credible press to call attention to it.
Which brings us to fake news. It's a problem with the liberal media at the moment because the conservative media hasn't (lately) done things like promote outlandish conspiracy theories such as #pissgate, erroneously reported unverified stories such as the claim two senior SS agents were fired for disagreeing with Trump, or promulgated any of the other inaccurate news stories they've latched onto in a desperate attempt to embarrass the new administration.
Which, as I said is a problem because it allows Trump to question the legitimacy of their reporting. They're playing the Boy Who Cried Wolf and that is creating a situation which will benefit no one in the long term.
Last edited Feb 06, 2017 at 05:23PM EST
Chewybunny wrote:
Only for? As far as I recall the whole "Fake News" came about BY liberal news outlets, calling for ending Fake News that got Trump elected.
And there was a lot of fake news and disinformation that permeated the 2016 election. Largely from the Balkans.
So the whole concept and term of Fake News really exploded right after the election concluded.
However, with so many fake stories now spreading against Trump, that it's now being used by Trump to target liberal news outlets, who have actually reported fake news.
As click-bait and outrage journalism is spreading, and increasing destruction of traditional news outlets, we are seeing opportunities to use information as a weapon. With the internet having an explosion of alternative news outlets, which cater to echo chambers ideology, and a growing distrust of traditional news outlets as being guardians of truth, this is the inevitable. It is increasingly harder and harder to discern fake news from real news, and this has been transformed as an incredibly effective weapon by countries like Russia, which have extremely stringent control over their own domestic news consumption.
In one sense, it is great that alternative news sources are growing, because it breaks down the powerful position of being the fourth pillar of our government (being guardians of information). On the other hand, it is increasingly hard to separate fake news from real news, since all sides and ideologies have come to rely on it for $$$, or as a tool to undermine a country.
Personally, as far as international news is concerned, I tend to trust sources that are catered to the military or foreign policy experts. My logic is that those that are most likely to go on the ground and potentially die in that place would be the most interested in knowing the objective truth about the conflicts they may be part of.
All this talk of fake news recently has me thinking of this scene from Metal Gear Solid 2. spoiler warning but this game is old so you have no excuse but I'm a nice guy
@ Rivers sure.
https://www.stratfor.com/ – extremely good geo political analysis
http://nationalinterest.org/ – realist school of geo political analysis
http://www.businessinsider.com/defense (BI in general is pretty good) – bit more mainstream but I really like them
Military.com provides a lot of news about the military but also geo-conflicts.
http://www.longwarjournal.org/ – focused primarily on the middle east, especially the boondoggles.
http://www.usni.org/ US navy Institude has a lot of news/blogs written by military officers that sometimes offer a poignant view – it also gives you idea of what we are preparing for.
http://www.debka.com/# DEBKAFiles is Israeli military / geo political analaysis/news but from a more Israeli perspective. I believe members of the IDF contribute to the blog, but I heard that they also get a lot of sources from Mossad.
http://cco.ndu.edu/
https://www.ctc.usma.edu/ Combating Terrorism Center, an analysis site for war on terror.
UK based defense news/blog/analysis http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/
https://www.wilsoncenter.org/ pretty well known in the polito-sphere, which has decent analysis. They aim their analysis for congressional members
http://cdrsalamander.blogspot.com/ CDRSalamander is a decent military blog I check out once in a while.
http://freebeacon.com/ bit – right of center but has good articles
ForeignPolicy.com is pretty good, I subscribe to the magazine. I actually disagree a lot sometimes with the conclusions of some of the analysis, but, it's informative.
https://www.memri.org/ – perspective from the middle east
http://www.atimes.com/ asian times
I also follow twitter accounts:
@th3j35t3r
@IntelOperator
@LawDavF
@masoud_barzani
@AlexKokcharov
And I like looking at this site a lot: https://ourworldindata.org/
Also, I am a big fan of a radio show in Los Angeles, called the Dark Secret Place with Bryan Suits, and it's got some top-notch global terrorism content.
https://www.connectpal.com/darksecretplace
Last edited Feb 06, 2017 at 09:12PM EST
Some bills of interest I saw recently. Many of these may not have any chance at passing, but still.
Multiple bills attempting to limit to outright ban abortions. Not really surprising.
H.R.527 – Greater Sage Grouse Protection and Recovery Act of 2017. Bill name sounds great. Of course, the name and what the bill says are a bit at odds "Until September 30, 2027, Interior may not alter or invalidate the finding [that the greater sage grouse is not an endangered or threatened species]." (there is a bill in the senate H.R.527 which, by the name, says that it will help " by facilitating State recovery plans".
H.R.870 -plan to return to the Moon and develop a sustained human presence Surprised to see a repubican propose a bill that would require science funding to be honest. I think NASA funds might be better spent elsewhere at the moment, but at this point, the fact isn't not a bill trying to abolish NASA seems to be an accomplishment..
http://heatst.com/culture-wars/toronto-black-lives-mater-slam-white-supremacist-terrorist-prime-minister-trudeau/ And they're eating him too!
An inevitable result of the public trust in media going down the tubes.
Okay, so…
There is a huge difference in "low quality of journalism" and "fake news". The media did and always will try to portray reality in a different way, sometimes more subtly, sometimes by misleading their audience. But calling every single statement, piece of data, fact that does not contribute to your ideology or doesn't praise you fake is an outright manipulation.
This is how Russian government handled independent news.
This is how Iran handled independent news.
This is how Turkey handled independent news.
This is how Hungary handled opposition, demonstrations, independent news.
This is how Poland tries to discredit independent news and any sort of protests and opposition (paid, not real, not organic, TRUE Poles suppport the government)
Sure, they are privately owned companies. Sure, they have an agenda – left, right, centre… but labelling everything that disagrees with you as untrue leads to dire consequences for the society if it normalizes.
If you see nothing with Trump's behaviour, I would reccomend looking at similar actions taken by people in power in other countries – it has a very simple goal: To create a fact void. "You lie, we tell the "truth" that is an apparent lie, you can't know what's true! So, the truth lies somewhere in between, and you will never find it".
This sort of approach means that any, and I repeat, any scandal that might happen will have a miniscule approach on the public support for a candidate. The people are no longer able to keep a check on the government – his supporters will always discredit valid criticism and his opponents will always hyperbolically portray his as the devil.
You have a varying quality of journalism in many different places, that is true. Sometimes, misleading articles pop out, sometimes even fake ones. They are usually retracted, corrected or news backpedal out of it.
But to call every single piece of information "fake news" is not only just not true – it's something that history shows us to be a first step in the mechanism of introducing propaganda. Of course, it doesn't have to lead to that, but if you look on the examples of countries with journalism problems, that's how it starts.
Introducing? Some would say american media is little more than competing propaganda outlets at this point.
^---Truth @ TriangleMare.
However, let's not excuse the MSM for being complicit in continuously creating low-quality journalism, to such an extent that all trust in them has eroded. Alternative news sites are grabbing the bulk of the audience, but they are far less centralized, and are far more catered to already pre-existing notions.
For many sensationalism has overtaken them as the only way they can financially compete in a marketplace of information, but it is a wrong tactic that has fermented and fostered a decline in quality, while maximizing clicks/views.
For many more it's become a partisan talking piece pretending to be news. Where before you can say one was "right leaning" or "left leaning" is now solidly right or left.
And the erosion of trust the American people have in the news media has eroded more and more:
And the partisan politics that has overwhelmed left-leaning journalism has reflected in a massive drop in trust among Republicans:
You're seeing that correctly. Gallup Poll showing Republicans trust in News Media drop in HALF from 33% 2015 to 14% 2016.
That they are losing such massive trust in America at large is why when they hollar the truth, no one listens. Talk about the Boy Who Cried Wolf on a mass scale eh?
I for one am gleeful that I am baring witness the erosion of centralized, monopolized, incompetent, and politically-in-bed journalism eroding.
However concerning it is that information and news, and so called truth, has been decentralized, and open for major misuse, I still think this is a good thing.
I encourage, very much encourage, people to be far more critical, to be far more open minded, and look at the news from the most objective sources you can find.
Last edited Feb 07, 2017 at 02:00PM EST
Greyblades wrote:
Introducing? Some would say american media is little more than competing propaganda outlets at this point.
And that "some" have never experienced actual propaganda.
To sum it up: The government, especially the head of state, are infallible. They are geniuses and saviours. Those who oppose us are thugs/elites/traitors (choose any and/or all of them) and aren't true [Insert nationality there] as they pander to external interests. Facts are presented only if they fit the current ideology, and there is always a "debate" in the opinion section of the news which involves a calm, collected, and well-prepared pro-government speaker and the most idiotic opponent of that idea we could find.
Take current media and compare them to the works of Chinese censors, Russian television or even past Soviet propaganda tapes.
Two completely different things: low-quality opinionated journalism and actual propaganda.
Sure, the quality of public debate is poor, but it has been poor in America for decades.
Alexis de Toqueville, a XIXth century political thinker, described his view on the actual public discussion like this: "I know of no country in which there is so little independence of mind and real freedom of discussion as in America. […] the majority raises formidable barriers around the liberty of opinion; within these barriers an author may write what he pleases, but woe to him if he goes beyond them."
Last edited Feb 07, 2017 at 02:17PM EST
@Greyblades:
I'd say those some are wrong. I don't feel the need to argue my point, though, because you didn't really argue yours. "Some people would say" is so weak an argument that you can use it to """prove""" the Earth is flat.
I'm really tired of people bashing polling. I argued before, in a rather decent length, the polls were fine, but nobody seems to have paid attention.
538 was an outlier in models, but they also had a track record for being basically the most accurate out of all of them. On election day, Trump had a 29% chance of winning according to them. This model was based only on polls! It's almost like polls, when interpreted correctly, do a pretty decent job.
I'm just getting really sick and tired of poll bashing. It's especially annoying because people have fallen to such horribly wrong pieces of """news""" that are more deserving of the title "fake news" than the majority of stuff CNN is accused of, like this bullshit piece of news I saw linked back during the election. It's fairly evident neither the person who posted it or the people who wrote this googled what "oversampling" means in polling terminology.
Oversampling is the practice of selecting respondents so that some groups make up a larger share of the survey sample than they do in the population. Oversampling small groups can be difficult and costly, but it allows polls to shed light on groups that would otherwise be too small to report on.
This might sound like it would make the survey unrepresentative, but pollsters correct this through weighting. With weighting, groups that were oversampled are brought back in line with their actual share of the population – removing the potential for bias.
…often we want to know what different kinds of people think about issues and how they compare with one another. When we are interested in learning about groups that make up only a small share of the population, the usual approach can leave us with too few people in each group to produce reliable estimates. When we want to look closely at small groups, we have to design the sample differently so that we have enough respondents in each group to analyze. We do this by giving members of the small group a higher chance of being selected than everybody else.
For some surveys, it is important to ensure that there are enough members of a certain subgroup in the population so that more reliable estimates can be reported for that group. To do this, we oversample members of the subgroup by selecting more people from this group than would typically be done if everyone in the sample had an equal chance of being selected. Because the margin of sampling error is related to the size of the sample, increasing the sample size for a particular subgroup through the use of oversampling allows for estimates to be made with a smaller margin of error. A survey that includes an oversample weights the results so that members in the oversampled group are weighted to their actual proportion in the population; this allows for the overall survey results to represent both the national population and the oversampled subgroup.
Those are literally on the first page of google search when you search "poll oversample".
And, to make things even more ridiculous – the polls Trump specifically brought up? They're general polls. Polls of way more people than just voters. When you have to poll just people you think might vote, it inherently has more uncertainty – nobody knows which people will vote until election day ends. But this? This is all adults. That entire element of error (which 538 says might have contributed to the issues in rust belt polling) is nonexistent in these polls. Y'all have very little reason to think they're horribly off.
You wanna bash polls? Come up with some arguments based in what actually happened. Point out how the rust belt polling was bad. Point out the lack of gubernatorial polling. We can have a wonderful discussion about the actual faults in the polling industry instead of perpetuating this false idea that the polls were rigged and/or utterly failed.
Last edited Feb 07, 2017 at 02:58PM EST
As cringey as this is going to sound, boy does this remind me of the old gamergate days.
The (trump administration/game journalism), especially the (president/female gamers), are infallible. They are geniuses and saviours. Those who oppose us are (fake news and liberal/misogynists and racists) and aren’t true (insert race, gender, or fandom) as they pander to (liberal media/structural racism). Facts are presented only if they fit the current ideology, and there is always a “debate” in the opinion section of the news which involves a calm, collected, and well-prepared (pro-trump/pro-feminist) speaker and the most idiotic opponent of that idea we could find.
One would say turnabout is fair game, and the liberal media has been doing this sort of double-think strategy for years. But an eye for an eye leaves everyone blind, and im running low on cliches and old sayings so i'll make this breif.
I really do not like how the liberals started this strategy, and I really don't like how donald trump is picking up on it and using it against them. The right has been doing this for awhile, ie, gamergate got the idea to contact sponsors and target ad revenue from the left wing online activists during the bush administration. But this type of double think "no side can be trusted but our side" kinda deal makes an atmosphere primed for a bullshit armsrace of very toxic political ideas.
Last edited Feb 07, 2017 at 03:15PM EST
Thank God that Putin wants to bring the old evil empire back to unite Americans for a common cause :|
Can we shift the subject over to just how much of a piece of fucking shit Betsy DeVos is for a second? Her only government experience is donating millions to anti-knowledge campaigns. She didn't even attend public school. I honestly can't stress enough how happy I am to have finished high school already.
[I’m really tired of people bashing polling. I argued before, in a rather decent length, the polls were fine, but nobody seems to have paid attention.]
Ok. I'll concede it's incorrect to say all pre-election polling was way off, but here is a quick set of examples explaining why many people don't trust polling as much as they once did. All come from about the last week of October.
The big polling organizations were pretty accurate, and the daily trackers got pretty close, but a lot of of the smaller polling organizations or those tied to media firms were off by over 10 points.
Part of this is the inherent weakness in polling. Yet while some of this can be attributed to sampling error, I posted months ago about how one of the polls showing Clinton up 10+ points, and received massive media attention, was not only being paid by a DNC super-PAC but had the president's brother on a campaign committee.
This what conservatives man when they refer to agenda-polling. Real pollsters who value objectivity and integrity should be calling out these examples and running them out of their industry, because the hucksters are undermining the entire business of polling.
And then there is the media. CNN claiming polling was not off, when they consistently pushed polls that aligned with their preferred outcome (see links above). As I said, most polling was closer than people remember. But this is because the media made a big deal about the polls that had Trump down so much that he had no chance. Media organizations used certain polls to influence public opinion, rather than inform it. As a result, the fine polls were ignored and are not remembered.
I see three components to the issue:
A) Scientific polling, which was/is accurate within reason.
B) Media/agenda polling, which is not and hides behind the legitimacy of a)
C) Media emphasizing category b) polling in order to influence public opinion.
There's no problem with A), but when the combination of B) + C) fails to come even close to reflecting the actual outcome, this causes people to question all polling. It's the same problem I mentioned earlier in regards to the media trying so desperately to catch the Trump administration in an embarrassing situation that it's significantly compromised it's own legitimacy.
Last edited Feb 07, 2017 at 04:09PM EST
Jimmy 3, People 0 wrote:
Can we shift the subject over to just how much of a piece of fucking shit Betsy DeVos is for a second? Her only government experience is donating millions to anti-knowledge campaigns. She didn't even attend public school. I honestly can't stress enough how happy I am to have finished high school already.
Hey, but at least she gave millions to the campaign.
Welcome to the swamp
Jimmy 3, People 0 wrote:
Can we shift the subject over to just how much of a piece of fucking shit Betsy DeVos is for a second? Her only government experience is donating millions to anti-knowledge campaigns. She didn't even attend public school. I honestly can't stress enough how happy I am to have finished high school already.
I just want to hear how people who support Trump current activities as President like how she'll be overseeing education. Surely, but everything about President Trump's Administration is defensible or not a significant issue. This is the one that burns me up the most.
I can work with different approaches to education. But she's not invested in public schools, never went to one, has an obvious reason to undermine public schools, and showed herself uninformed on key issues in public education in her hearing. You have time to prepare for an interview. Someone competent in general should know that, but especially for a position like Secretary of Education. Why wasn't she?
…but this includes public colleges, Jimmy. Not just K-12.
My Republican friends don't even like her nomination or confirmation. But then again, most of my more educated Republican friends didn't like Trump either.
EDIT: No, wait, that was the looks of reasonable counterarguments. The State of Washington is on the stage now-- so to speak-- as I'm writing this.
EDIT 2: The State of Washington asserts that reinstating the ban would be throwing the country into chaos-- and is effectively told to not try to play the feds.
At least they're being vicious to everyone.
Last edited Feb 07, 2017 at 06:37PM EST
Astatine, Resident Hijab Enthusiast said:
How is this order going to be argued in the SCOTUS?
My guess is they'll try an equal protection violation. Now, how the states can argue they have standing for arguing it, I don't know.
@Rivers
The national polls were pretty accurate--even though everyone seemed to forget "margin of error" was a thing and said a one or two point lead was firm and real. But you've got to admit some of the critical state polls were terrible. Most of the Michigan polls showed Clinton leading by 5 points, well beyond the margin of error. Wisconsin was even worse. You even saw the reverse happen in California, with Clinton gaining 6 points over the polls.
The media really didn't help. You almost saw a confirmation bias kind of thing happen where all the "Trump can't win" people looked at a 3% lead as insurmountable fact and presented it as such. I don't know if Huffpost will ever be able to live down their 98% Clinton wins prediction, no matter how many times they run it through a computer simulation.
pinkiespy – goat spy said:
…she gave millions to the campaign…
DeVos didn't donate to Trump's presidential campaign. Both her, and her family, are and have been major Republican donors, going back to the days of Carter. Donors being rewarded isn't exactly something new (unfortunately) and I'd wager her nomination does have at least something to do with her education advocacy, which lines up with Trump's.
xTSGx wrote:
My guess is they’ll try an equal protection violation.
They tried an equal protection violation argument, along with some talk about how harm was done to the state. One of the justices pointed out that on both counts, these were all just allegations.
The government representative was grilled by the same justice about comments Trump and his aides gave pertaining to Muslims.
Given the actual orders, do you think said comments should be taken seriously?
Most of the Michigan polls showed Clinton leading by 5 points, well beyond the margin of error. Wisconsin was even worse.
Aye, I specifically pointed out that rust belt polls were bad this time around. As I said, there are legitimate criticisms of the polls. Pollsters are still trying to figure out exactly what they did wrong there, last I checked. (It may be due to underpolling lower educated people – something like the more educated you are, the more likely you are to respond to telephone polls.)
You even saw the reverse happen in California, with Clinton gaining 6 points over the polls.
It should be noted that while polling did underestimate Clinton there, it was also really sparse in the final stretch. More abundant polling tends to give greater accuracy.
I don’t know if Huffpost will ever be able to live down their 98% Clinton wins prediction, no matter how many times they run it through a computer simulation.
I'd be more worried about this dude.
I’ll concede it’s incorrect to say all pre-election polling was way off, but here is a quick set of examples explaining why many people don’t trust polling as much as they once did. All come from about the last week of October.
I will agree that does shake peoples trust in polls, but I feel like this as more to do with people's interpretations of the polls.
Polling is best considered in bulk – not individually. Also, typically people look at the last week of polls when comparing to the results, and those were much closer (the 1.1% difference).
I'm not denying in any measure that those polls made people question them. Rather, I'm saying that most people really don't understand good practices about interpretation.
Now, I basically agreed with everything else you said, except one thing – barring that I instantly agreed with you. People looked at the most flashy and amazing polls, and in the process missed what was actually happening. There was a lack of major people going "fuck off" when people did that, and so people looked at those flash double digit Clinton lead polls and went "yeah that's awesome!!! Clinton ftw!!!"
The one thing I wasn't sure on was the difference between media polls and other polls. So, I did two analyses: firstly, I compared MSM polls (defined as basically the "alphabet networks" + NYT, WaPo, and WSJ) to other polls, and then I compared all media polls (meaning those such as Reuters/Ipsos and LATimes are included).
Results: In both cases (stretching for the 10 days prior to the election) MSM and news-organization produced national polls were more favorable for Clinton than the other. Bloop for the dataset (I used RCP – just assume I do whenever it comes up, I think RCP is better)
In both cases, also, the second category (non-msm/non-news) were closer to the actual results.
Thanks for prompting this, I'll keep this in mind for the future. Although, it should be noted they weren't far off. You wouldn't be screwing yourself over by taking them into consideration. However, it is very interesting (and suggestive) that those polls tended Clinton more.
Featured
