All Purpose News and Politics Thread Part IV: The Center Cannot Hold

[WestPhillyPunisher]

Paris FD Marhsall said the bell towers, everything, is pretty much gutted. The old wood was tinder and why they didn't want anybody in there. They pretty much decided with the wind and the speed, not do go in because it was too dangerous. He also said calling in air support would be irresponsible and imprecise.

Even though one of the world’s true historical wonders was destroyed, at least there was no loss of life.

[BeastieRunner]

Even though one of the world’s true historical wonders was destroyed, at least there was no loss of life.

Indeed.

It appears that call was made when the first people were on the scene. The wind, the age of the wood, the fire starting on the roof it appears. A perfect storm of terrible conditions. Thankfully, no confirmed deaths or injuries so far.

"Everything is burning, nothing will remain from the frame," Notre Dame spokesperson Andre Finot told French media, according to the Associated Press.

[Venomous Mask]

I'm kind of bummed that I'm not going to see Andrew Yang today, but a few things have come up that might make going more trouble than it's worth. Still, I love him and will be voting for him (and no, he's not alt-right in any sense of the word).

[BeastieRunner]

Mayor, Fire Marshall, Dept. of Interior just said even though they are completely gutted, in their haste to save the remaining artwork, they managed to find a way to save the towers.

The towers were engulfed but now they are saved. So there's some great news!

[The Darknight Detective]

Mayor, Fire Marshall, Dept. of Interior just said even though they are completely gutted, in their haste to save the remaining artwork, they managed to find a way to save the towers.

The towers were engulfed but now they are saved. So there's some great news!

Indeed. That and nobody being killed are to be celebrated.

[kidfresh512]

Trump is so endlessly embarassing.

This is the true response that should represent America https://www.instagram.com/p/BwSi8c3A...ource=ig_embed

[WestPhillyPunisher]

Trump is so endlessly embarassing.

This is the true response that should represent America https://www.instagram.com/p/BwSi8c3A...ource=ig_embed

Say what you will about Obama’s politics, the man possessed honor, empathy and compassion, things Trump lacks in abundance.

[Malvolio]

Truly sad about the collapse of the Notre Dame Cathedral, but remember, it's just a building. they can always build a new cathedral. As a few have said, and the Pope probably will, as well, thank God there was no loss of life.

[rogersmcfeely]

Truly sad about the collapse of the Notre Dame Cathedral, but remember, it's just a building. they can always build a new cathedral.

That, they can, but not one with a direct continuity to all that history and heritage. It might be a far superior building architecturally, but not the same one that saw 800+ years of history.

[WestPhillyPunisher]

One serial adulterer sucking up to another:

Trump to award Tiger Woods with the Presidential Medal of Freedom

[Mister Mets]

I...have to ask this. IT’s been rattling in my brain for a while now, and I haven’t felt it appropriate to ask. But...look, Mets...are you on the spectrum? I don’t mean any offense, honestly and truly, but in the time I have been on these threads, I have noticed that, like my nephew who IS on the spectrum, you have a real difficulty with rhetorical flourishes and subtext. If you ARE, I will work harder at being more precise. If you are NOT, then you need to stop policing semantics and recognize that people are poetic and emotional and that seeps into our speech.

As for #ACAB, as I have explained before, that is a rhetorical device called ‘metonymy’. It is essentially shorthand, and a cousin to metaphor and synonym. It is when you use a quick, brief word or phrase to mean something more detailed.

Examples:

- ‘the crown’ referring to the role of leadership and the responsibilities of leadership in the phrase ‘heavy is the crown’.
- ‘suit’ referring to a businessman or government spook, or otherwise rigid, stuffed-shirt type with no sense of humor.
- ACAB referring to the undeniably corrupt system inherent in the police force, regardless of individual ‘good ones’’

It’s shorthand, man. It’s how people talk...



Again, my list was about numbers, and it is telling that most would-be assassins of progressives are angry at them for trying to move forward, and assassination attempts on conservatives come from people angry at what those politicians have done to actually hurt people. JFK was killed because he wasn’t giving Russia what it wanted. Bobby was killed by a bigoted Christian (thanks for proving THAT point for me...). Harvey Milk’s assassin was a Christian as well, Democrat or no. The point is, progressives get targeted for trying to make people’s lives better, and conservatives get targeted for actually making people’s lives worse.



No. The timeline does not matter, because we do not live in 1980s world. We live in 2019, and right now, RIGHT NOW, the law is very plain. And these bakers are breaking the law NOW. Stop trying to change the subject to something unrelated and unimportant to the discussion we are having NOW. Should businesses who denied service to gay people in the past have done better. Absolutely. Morally, and ethically, yes. But there weren't laws then – or inclusion in the laws that did exist - to FORCE businesses to not be shitty bigots if they want to make money off of the public. Your question about whether or not businesses in the 80’s should be held to today's standards has as much relevance as my question about slave owners. Shitty bigots are shitty bigots, no matter the time frame or legality of that bigotry.


My response to this is gonna take up room, so…I’ll address it separately.



You seriously think progressives want equal outcomes…? No. That's just…no. We want equal OPPORTUNITY. Which, no matter what rich, white, Christian men say to the contrary, is not what we have in America. Poor people are not on a level playing field with rich people. People of color do not start on the same line as white people. Gay people are not on par with straight people. And so on. One very specific subsection of humanity has the vast majority of resources, power, and cache, and the rest of us are well behind, in the race. No one is pushing for everyone to cross the same finish line at the same time, but allowing everyone the opportunity to start the race at the same line, on a level playing field would sure be nice.



As others have pointed out, nuclear is not cheap. The long term risks are greater, and thus, more costly in the long run, the short term benefits do not outweigh those risks, and the costs are anything but cheap. So…yeah.



I am concerned about you trying to use women's health as a bargaining chip. Period. Abortion is not murder, women's health is not a commodity, and if your party would rather see the world burn than see women free to make choices about their own bodies, well, that says quite a bit, I think.



As others have pointed out, what YOU claim is Democratic policy has never once been pushed by any Democrat, outside of that VERY IMPORTANT T-SHIRT THAT ONE GUY WORE THAT ONE TIME.

Looking at ACTUAL policy, Democrats believe inBorders, and work to uphold them. They just don't put kids in cages, or RIP babies from their mothers to sell on the black market. Sorry, to 'adopt out to white couples looking for exotic babies', the way we used to do to the Native Americans when we 'settled' America and took it for Jesus from the savage heathen hordes...

Yeah, you probably shouldn't ask people whether they're on the spectrum. I'd hope you prefer to never be in the position of being wrong and obnoxious.

To answer the question, I am probably not on the spectrum. I have a low tolerance for bullshit and a high sense of morality, so I try to avoid being wrong. I'm sure I fall short of that standard at times, but this carries onto arguments.

I appreciate that people come with different perspectives, so there are views that I believe to be wrong and outrageous that others sincerely hold, hence why I avoid assuming that they don't mean what they say. I'm sure I've said things that seem quite outrageous to you guys, but it is stuff that I believe (the closest thing to an exception is when I'm considering the logical extreme of another position. For example, I don't think 50,000,000 people dying terribly each year is a worthwhile tradeoff for the problems of climate change; people who think global warming will lead to human extinction should find the tradeoff a no-brainer.)

In society, we have to be able to have civil discussions with people who we sincerely believe are advocating for policies that will kill millions and prevent much of the population from reaching their potential, because these are the stakes. I've made my peace with that, (as well as the possibility that I'm wrong, and standing in the way of policies that will save millions) and may incorrectly assume others thought things through to the same extent.

I personally avoid rhetorical flourishes, reliance on anecdotal evidence, and emotionalism because these would increase the chances of being misunderstood. For the same reason, I try to avoid making arguments personal. I might criticize a tendency or a political position, but I don't go after the person, because the important thing is the argument. And on that note, I will stick to the specific point being argued. I'm a stickler for goal posts because when people with different sources of information are having a discussion, it's better if they've got the same understanding of information.

The writer/ director Brad Bird had an interesting point in an interview on the note behind the note, the idea that some studio objections seem like nonsense on their face, but hint at a serious unarticulated concern.

A great example of this was a story I heard from Brad Bird when he was working on Incredibles 1. Bob and elastagirl where fighting and the brain trust (I believe) came back with notes that it seems like Bob is bullying Elastagirl and the scene needed to be taken out or reworked. He tried to rework the scene, but he kept saying "No, this is what would happen, this is how they would react". He then eventually realized that while their symptom was correct, this uncomfortable feeling of spousal abuse or bullying, their solution was wrong. Bob didn't have to be "nicer" or not express his anger, it's just that Elastagirl was like 1/4th his size and it seemed like a mismatch. He then added that elastagirl puffs up and stretches out "This is not About YOU!!" to a size bigger than Bob and the whole feeling of the scene was fixed without really changing anything but her animation.

I can appreciate that we're human and that we can fail to articulate legitimate points well, but on the other hand it's not someone else's job to figure out what we're trying to communicate.

Shorthand is based on people having a shared understanding. We came as a society to ascribe meaning to "the crown" or "suits" but while the nuances of ACAB might be understood to a particular community, it's not common parlance just yet. It's not described within the New York Times, for example. It also doesn't follow that someone should realize that the phrase isn't meant literally. If you truly believe the system could broken, it could be argued that every police officer is complicit, and therefore worthy of condemnation.

I hold different positions than most people here, consume different sources of information (I don't hatewatch Fox News, I will read National Review) and have internalized different arguments, so I try to avoid shorthand, because I'm aware the frame of references may be different. There are still going to be times when I make incorrect assumptions about people's understandings, for example, when I wrote about the problems of mandating equality, which I meant as shorthand for efforts at getting equal outcomes, and others read as being about equal treatment. I appreciate that you understand that society shouldn't expect equal outcomes, although I don't think this is true of everyone on the left.

On specific points, the abortion grand bargain isn't about any position articulated by Republicans. It's based on an understanding that a large chunk of the population votes Republican because they believe that abortion is morally equivalent to murder, so they're potentially up for grabs (this might have predated modern polarization so it might not work any more.)

On Keith Ellison's T-shirt, he isn't some guy. Every single member of the DNC voted to make him a national spokesman for the party when he received the unanimous vote for Deputy Chair.

[Mister Mets]

I apologise, it was right wing austerity tactics that killed 120,000. The Disability groups are within that number however which is where my confusion from my initial sources came from.

https://fullfact.org/health/austerit...essary-deaths/

Fact checker suggests its plausable frankly, or as plausable as you can get with this kind of data where you can't actually pinpoint the death on the factor in question. Ie : You could brush off higher black american mortality as merely inner city violence but that ignores WHY the ghetto and inner city violence occurs in the first place.

We can't know for sure what causes the difference in fatalities, and I'm curious about the specifics (IE- Are these 120,000 people who would still be alive, or are many of them likely to have otherwise died within two years?)

Within the US, life expectancy has been declining, largely due to poor results with working class white people. The main culprits are obesity, suicide, alcoholism and drug abuse.

And the facts are -- as I demonstrated via link -- that the Democrats are not for open borders or abolishing ICE, so it's misleading to try to infer that from their "silence" and dishonest repeatedly project that as a prominent Democratic platform or policy.

https://www.factcheck.org/2018/07/ca...-open-borders/

Anyway, you have my answer -- I don't "infer" anything from their "silence" because I judge them (and the Republicans) by their actions.

My position is based on facts. I'm not pretending Democrats have said something they haven't. Policy on legal immigration is one of the main questions for the country; in terms of sheer numbers affected, this is going to exceed border patrol policy and possible amnesty. I get polling data from reliable sources to support any views on the public's wishes.

And there he goes...JAQing off again, asking minutely detailed, pedantic questions that have zero relevance but help distract from the actual matters being discussed. *throws hands in the air and walks off* Jesus Christ...

JAQ is "just asking questions," right?

I've addressed other points in more detail in another post, but let's look at the specifics of the claim that the questions have nothing to do with the topic.

"Why are they silent?" does seem to be relevant to the actual matters being discussed of what the Democratic party says about one of the most important policy questions (Who should be allowed into the country?)

"Has Mike Pence specifically associated with the people who praised the Orlando shooter?" seems relevant if you're trying to link Pence and the worst ministers. .Presumably you wouldn't let me get away with the reverse (IE- making a claim about a Democratic Senator, and then shifting to random activists from another state.)

[aja_christopher]

My position is based on facts. I'm not pretending Democrats have said something they haven't.

You're dishonestly pretending Democrats seek "open borders" -- which is a lie, as the fact-checker points out directly.

Also, you still haven't answered why you -- as someone who claims to be a "moral" person -- support a blatantly corrupt, racist, homophobic, warmongering, fiscally irresponsible party that is headed by the blatantly corrupt, racist, homophobic, fraudulent, fiscally irresponsible representative known as Trump.

-----
"Despite President Donald Trump’s repeated claims, Democrats are not advocating open borders, not even the ones who are calling to abolish Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

The small minority of Democrats in Congress calling for the end of ICE have all said they would like to have many of ICE’s functions redistributed to other, existing government agencies.

None has called for abandoning border enforcement.

During the 2016 presidential campaign, Trump frequently, and inaccurately, accused Hillary Clinton of supporting open borders. As we wrote then, Clinton supported the 2013 Senate immigration bill, the so-called Gang of Eight bill, which in addition to providing a path to earned citizenship for those then in the country illegally, would have included significant investments in border security. The bill would have doubled the number of border patrol agents along the Mexican border, added 350 miles of new fencing, and added a host of security and technologies to prevent illegal immigration.

In fact, every Democrat in the Senate voted for the bill. Sen. Chuck Schumer, the Democratic leader in the Senate, cited that bill in a tweet responding to Trump’s repeated claims about Democratic support for open borders."

https://www.factcheck.org/2018/07/ca...-open-borders/

[worstblogever]

Truly sad about the collapse of the Notre Dame Cathedral, but remember, it's just a building. they can always build a new cathedral. As a few have said, and the Pope probably will, as well, thank God there was no loss of life.

Is there any better topic to be covered in an Easter mass sermon about a God with a resurrection story than to talk about a church rising again?

[Tami]

U.S. deports spouse of fallen soldier, quickly reverses decision

The husband of a U.S. soldier killed in Afghanistan was back in the United States Monday after being deported to Mexico last week in a development that left the couple's 12-year-old daughter in Arizona without parents.

Jose Gonzalez Carranza, 30, was arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers last Monday on his way to his welding job and then deported to Nogales, Mexico, on Wednesday, said Ezequiel Hernandez, his Phoenix attorney.

Reached by phone earlier Monday, Gonzalez said he had been living in a shelter for deported migrants in Nogales, Mexico, a city he didn't know, and was worried about his daughter, Evelyn Gonzalez Vieyra, a U.S. citizen.

"I feel so bad," Gonzalez said. "I'm thinking about, I might never see her again."

Gonzalez was married to Army Pfc. Barbara Vieyra, who was killed on Sept. 18, 2010, while serving in the U.S. Army in Afghanistan. She was 22.