Yes Bundy and "sanctuary cities" are not the same thing. States have no requirement to allocate their resources to do the federal governments job. The federal government is supposed to do immigration and borders, not the states. The feds want states to go broke holding people who might or might not be illegally in the country for weeks at a time before the feds get around to doing anything? That's not right.
Illegally grazing on federal land, taking over federal buildings and getting in shootouts and pointing guns at federal officials doing their jobs is totally different. Presumably this ruling will convince law enforcement that they need to pull a Waco, TX next time and just assault the compound and skip the trial since it seems people are determined to undermine the rule of law.
It should be noted that most law enforcement agencies HATE the idea of conducting immigration raids because of a very simple reason: when they start doing so, the entire Hispanic community of the city turns against them, and then refuse to cooperate and come forth with information about actual meaningful crimes. But it's also because of what @smeagolheart says: it isn't their job. The attempt to make it their job is yet another example of Republican outsourcing and lack of willingness to take on the responsibility at the federal level. If Trump wants to go apeshit deporting people, he can do it himself. It's not the responsibility of the taxpayers of San Francisco or Seattle to subsidize his policy.
This is another great time to point out that most of the money that goes IN to the federal coffers comes from blue states, and most that goes OUT goes to red states.
Not really (about hunger). As far as I remember economy lessons, the famine was result of exactly bad planning - a believe that farmers are capable to feed modern cities. It's not true now and it was not true even at that time. Or do you really believe that small farms are feeding megalopolises? Revolution removed big landlords, who were producing (not them, their peasants did, of course) all the food cities needed. When the land was granted to individual families, those families on their farms produced enough food to feed themselves and a little more to sell - this is it. Cities begin to die, "food gathering" troops sent to farms to take by force what farmers had - so, farmers begin to die. The solution was found in food producing communities: conglomeration of farmers, working first for states on states land, and only then for themselves.
As of impossibility 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs' - depends of the way you raise your children. And China is a perfect example here. Can not recall the even (some big data for China) but a film was made with every world famous Chinese actor, director and so on. And all of them - those super stars! - worked for free, because they worked for the good of the country.
Economy does not exist in the vacuum. It's bound to social structure, education, ideals (propaganda too, of course). You can see small scales examples of completely different communities with their standards of life all around you. Take Amish communities - self sustained and with world view very far from most of people here. You might not want to live in such community, but they exist and people can be raised in believe that this is the (only) way.
I'm not suggesting that there was a single cause of the famine - drought and war were clearly major causes for instance. However, by 1921 the amount of land in cultivation had dropped by half since the end of the war. You refer to one reason for that - farmers were choosing not to produce a surplus (other than a bit for the black market) as they knew that would just be requisitioned without any benefit to them.
I think the film you're probably referring to is The Founding of a Republic. I agree that the stars in that worked for free, but I'm not sure that provides much evidence they were motivated to do so for the good of the country. It's not unusual for film and music stars to make some unpaid appearances.
Communities can certainly survive and thrive on the basis that everyone is helping each other. However, I think for that to be successful there needs to be a powerful and shared philosophy. In the case of the Amish that's religious, but that's not essential. Most communes started in the 1960s had economic and social roots for instance and, while in most cases those were short-lived, some have been successful. Gaining widespread acceptance to that type of philosophy in a large nation state though I think is a different matter.
I think you all know by now where my political sympathies lie, but the media is doing no service to the American people with shit like this:
Literally, the guy glanced up in the direction of the eclipse for like one second before putting on the glasses. But regardless...
Anyone who sees that front page or other MSM/MSM social media coverage will come away with a completely different impression from reality. As if he just stood and gawked during the entire eclipse. Now overt partisans can try and deny this by claiming that one second is dangerous or blah blah whatever...but the fact remains that the initial impression is a completely different thing.
It's an utter shame that I had to preface this point with a political disclosure, but that's just how things are these days...sadly, on both sides of the political isle.
As a Marxist socialist, my personal opinion is that the press should be non-profit and free from private interests. It should be publicly owned and overseen by ethics committees comprised of private citizens. But I understand many will disagree with this. That's fine...but at least demand more of our institutions.
As someone who is neither liberal nor conservative I am looking at this from the outside and am telling you that the country deserves better...from both Trump AND the mainstream media. It should never be the prerogative of any free press to manipulate and socially engineer a populace towards political ends, and just because they may appear to be on your side doesn't make it right. All the media is doing with shit like this is reinforcing Trump's claims about fake news and causing people to lose faith in the free press which, if he were a little more clever than what he actually is, could do some major damage.
The media and the president both are behaving very irresponsibly and the nation deserves better than this. The sad thing is that Trump will be gone someday. The disgusting, lying, overtly partisan and deceptive "free" press is something we're permanently stuck with.
I really don't see evidence for Trump's lying press lies. I'm pretty sure no mainstream media went with "Trump only stared at the sun.".
Trump would know a thing or two about lying to the media and making up fake news since he used to post as his own publicist under the aliases John Baron and John Miller where he'd plant stories about how how great Donald Trump is at getting the ladies.
There's a Wikipedia page about Donald Trump pseudonyms. Seems he would lie about stuff then if he got away with it great for him and if he got called out on it pretend it was a "joke gone away.". Haha lying to people what a great joke, right? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_pseudonyms
He also lied about claiming to have a source that proved Barrack Obama was not born in the US which he somehow never disclosed.
Anyway, Trump has shown how a liar can subvert the press. That doesn't make the press bad, it shows that conscience free liars like Trump can break the system. It's a good thing most people are not like him.
I didn't say there was evidence for Trump's lying press lies. I said there is evidence that the press isn't exactly on the up and up, and that can only help Trump. The media must remain as credible as they can in these times, and for obvious reasons.
So it didn't say that "Trump only stared at the sun." You are really grasping, aren't you?
Sorry to say, but an established national newspaper should be above front pages like that. The "not too bright" was childish to say the least. Couple that with the fact that it was insinuated, on the front page, that Trump called the eclipse warnings "fake news" (taking a liberty based on earlier Trump rhetoric, but patently false just the same), as well as using the word "stare" (definition:to gaze fixedly and intently) when it was in fact a quick glance, just easily demonstrates that the press is what any reasonable person would call...well...biased as fuck.
And I've seen countless examples of this bias from both the right-wing, left-wing, and everything in between media. It's disgusting and the people deserve better. There's no defending it.
As a Marxist socialist, my personal opinion is that the press should be non-profit and free from private interests. It should be publicly owned and overseen by ethics committees comprised of private citizens. But I understand many will disagree with this. That's fine...but at least demand more of our institutions.
You know, lets expand on this, because I am curious.
Define press, is it all media? Television, print, internet, radio? What about documentaries? or media that can be considered press, but is more entertainment based such as gaming, or sports magazines. What if that other media, starts inserting politics into stories, such as how a players refuse to attend an invitation to the White House?
How many, and who exactly would be on this ethics committee? Just ordinary citizens? historians or political hacks? scientist, other journalist? How does one get appointed to such a position, and how would corruption and bribery be curbed from happening?
If you take the profit out of the media outlets, how will it be paid for? How will the ethics committee be paid for? To put into perspective, it costs Canadians 1.1 Billion dollars for the CBC alone, which still uses advertising.
If the message is wrong, or controversial, who will hold the press accountable if it is no longer a for profit? A sorta start up here in Canada called Rebel News (an far right news organization) is pretty much folding after their coverage of Charlottesville, as employees, advertisers and politicians are distancing themselves from it.
How do you prevent people from starting their own publication, using their own resources? What if someone does, what is the punishment to prevent them from doing it again?
The vague notion of a non-profit press can seem ideal, until you start digging and asking questions about how it would actually work in a society. That doesn't mean a non-profit can't exist either, on the contrary. CSPAN works well as an unfiltered view into what is happening in American politics and one can just watch that, and tune out all other opinions if they would like to form their own uninfluenced one. But having only one organization (the government) in control of the press just leads to propaganda and it's own distorted message.
As I've said, I KNEW this was coming as a major olive branch to his white nationalist base after he had to make the tepid statements denouncing them after Charlottesville. His ACTIONS are going to be to pardon this racist, CRIMINAL icon of the anti-immigrant, white nationalist movement. Are there ANY modern examples of a President pardoning a major public figure like this that didn't occur at the end of the Administration, but within the first 8 months?? Post-Nixon??
Fair enough--I cannot equate sanctuary cities and fighting back against a Federal agency. The point I was trying to make, though, was this: why should private citizens obey Federal authority when local law enforcement chooses not to?
This is another great time to point out that most of the money that goes IN to the federal coffers comes from blue states, and most that goes OUT goes to red states.
Then would you support ending Federal programs which give money to those red States? (I suppose that would actually end the Federal money going to all States, if we are going to treat them all equally.) Why should those Californians pay for things which benefit people in Louisiana?
Fair enough--I cannot equate sanctuary cities and fighting back against a Federal agency. The point I was trying to make, though, was this: why should private citizens obey Federal authority when local law enforcement chooses not to?
This is another great time to point out that most of the money that goes IN to the federal coffers comes from blue states, and most that goes OUT goes to red states.
Then would you support ending Federal programs which give money to those red States? (I suppose that would actually end the Federal money going to all States, if we are going to treat them all equally.) Why should those Californians pay for things which benefit people in Louisiana?
Absolutely not. I'm simply sick of decades of hearing about how liberals are the ones who are moochers and leeching off everyone's tax dollars. On a macro level, it's the exact opposite.
Fair enough--I cannot equate sanctuary cities and fighting back against a Federal agency. The point I was trying to make, though, was this: why should private citizens obey Federal authority when local law enforcement chooses not to?
Local law enforcement do obey Federal Laws. I highly doubt you'd find an illegal immigrant working as by-law officer for example. The key word is "authority." The Federal government can not authorize the states to do their job for them, unless it goes through Congress then held up through the courts.
Not ACTIVELY seeking out illegal immigrants for that specific crime is no different than not posting an officer outside every single bar in town at closing time. Every night people are leaving those bars drunk, yet the vast majority of them are not stopped and drive home. Why?? Because the local cops can't possibly handle that many DUI bookings overnight. For everyone who gets caught, 50 or 100 probably get away with it. Because no one has the resources to set up sobriety check-points at numerous strategic locations on a perpetual basis. Likewise, they don't have time to stop by construction sites or restaurants to see if the people paving a parking lot or washing dishes have proper documentation.
I don't know if we should end the payments to red welfare states but it sure sticks in your craw when they claim to be "real America" and anti government when they are leeching off the states that most people actually want to live in.
It is definitely true that immigration is *not* a role that law enforcement should be fulfilling--they have more important things to do than worry about whether some random person is in the country legally, even if that person has wound up in jail.
The *real* problem with the Bundy folks are their connections to violent fringe groups like Posse Comitatus--these people are in the "sovereign citizen" movement and they believe that the Federal government has *no* authority over them whatsoever. If you start researching that movement be aware that the rabbit hole is astonishingly deep.
Here's what really bugs me about these red state antigovernment types. They often rant and whine and demand the rest of us follow their backwards ways in bathrooms, bedrooms, marriages, and religious choices. And then despite the fact that they are overrepresented in the government, they have the gall to complain the government is not representing them.
The system is rigged. States where hardly anyone lives have a disproportionate amount of influence on the states where the most Americans actually live. A flyover red state, such as say Wyoming, gets the same amount of Senators as California and New York which have far more Americans.
Red states are overepresented in the House due to gerrymandering and rules from 1913 that limit the amount of Representatives states get. California should get at least 13 more House seats.
Tiny red States are also disproportionately represented in the electoral college which has twice in recent years given the presidency to the guy that lost the popular vote so less Americans voted for the president and the person who did not win got more votes.
How about a little respect for us liberals who subsidize you? How about getting out of our lives and stop trying to dictate our freedoms? I thought you guys were"free market"? So the free market doesn't support you, it supports the bigger states, you should be all good with that.
It is definitely true that immigration is *not* a role that law enforcement should be fulfilling--they have more important things to do than worry about whether some random person is in the country legally, even if that person has wound up in jail.
The *real* problem with the Bundy folks are their connections to violent fringe groups like Posse Comitatus--these people are in the "sovereign citizen" movement and they believe that the Federal government has *no* authority over them whatsoever. If you start researching that movement be aware that the rabbit hole is astonishingly deep.
Rachel Maddow covered this extensively when it was happening. And there is a straight-line that goes through all these fringe militia movements. The Oathkeepers, the Bundy Boys, Sheriff Joe, Posse Comitatus (who I believe recognize no authority but the local Sheriff). Before 9/11, it was these types of ideologies that led to the biggest terror attack we had ever seen in Oklahoma City, which has been utterly forgotten about in the last 20 years.
"I found myself thinking about this advice as I walked down Franklin Avenue in Brooklyn this past weekend. I noticed a white person walking her dog. Another listening to his music. And a third having dinner with her friends.
Do all of these people harbor a thinly veiled hatred for me, I wondered? Is there a secret white conspiracy scheming against me? How do I escape all this toxic whiteness I keep hearing about?"
The advice she was pondering being, of course, the notion that all whites are racist and evil and should be avoided. Certainly very brave to ponder a question like that and come back with a "meh, probably not." Credit where it is due, however, to NYT for being slightly less regressive then their contemporaries and avoiding the call for outright prejudice and segregation.
Now if only we can get NYT's attitude to influence the rest of the left and the Democratic Party. Maybe start with outing the Deputy Chair and former black seperatist and member of a hate group that calls whites devils and demonizes the jews and defends the murderers of U.S soldiers. It's like the man fits in reverse every fever dream that can possibly be made up about Trump.
The regressive left often doesn't even try to make excuses for their belief that anti white racism is at best a neutral thing and at worst a good. Take, for example, the attempts to rewrite the definition of racism so that only whites may be racist because institutional power or some other thoroughly subjective metric.
"I found myself thinking about this advice as I walked down Franklin Avenue in Brooklyn this past weekend. I noticed a white person walking her dog. Another listening to his music. And a third having dinner with her friends.
Do all of these people harbor a thinly veiled hatred for me, I wondered? Is there a secret white conspiracy scheming against me? How do I escape all this toxic whiteness I keep hearing about?"
The advice she was pondering being, of course, the notion that all whites are racist and evil and should be avoided. Certainly very brave to ponder a question like that and come back with a "meh, probably not." Credit where it is due, however, to NYT for being slightly less regressive then their contemporaries and avoiding the call for outright prejudice and segregation.
Now if only we can get NYT's attitude to influence the rest of the left and the Democratic Party. Maybe start with outing the Deputy Chair and former black seperatist and member of a hate group that calls whites devils and demonizes the jews and defends the murderers of U.S soldiers. It's like the man fits in reverse every fever dream that can possibly be made up about Trump.
The regressive left often doesn't even try to make excuses for their belief that anti white racism is at best a neutral thing and at worst a good. Take, for example, the attempts to rewrite the definition of racism so that only whites may be racist because institutional power or some other thoroughly subjective metric.
If you say "regressive left" into a mirror three times while clicking your heels together, it might actually become a real boy, instead of just a nonsense buzzword invented and repeated ad nauseum by the Alt-right.
Yes Bundy and "sanctuary cities" are not the same thing. States have no requirement to allocate their resources to do the federal governments job. The federal government is supposed to do immigration and borders, not the states. The feds want states to go broke holding people who might or might not be illegally in the country for weeks at a time before the feds get around to doing anything? That's not right.
Illegally grazing on federal land, taking over federal buildings and getting in shootouts and pointing guns at federal officials doing their jobs is totally different. Presumably this ruling will convince law enforcement that they need to pull a Waco, TX next time and just assault the compound and skip the trial since it seems people are determined to undermine the rule of law.
Please, no more Waco fiascos. There is a big push for conflict negotiation training in LE agencies, but it is a slow process that goes against decades of training before. Sometimes negotiators are seen 'apart' from the rest. It's not easy but I want to see much more training.
Yes Bundy and "sanctuary cities" are not the same thing. States have no requirement to allocate their resources to do the federal governments job. The federal government is supposed to do immigration and borders, not the states. The feds want states to go broke holding people who might or might not be illegally in the country for weeks at a time before the feds get around to doing anything? That's not right.
Illegally grazing on federal land, taking over federal buildings and getting in shootouts and pointing guns at federal officials doing their jobs is totally different. Presumably this ruling will convince law enforcement that they need to pull a Waco, TX next time and just assault the compound and skip the trial since it seems people are determined to undermine the rule of law.
Please, no more Waco fiascos. There is a big push for conflict negotiation training in LE agencies, but it is a slow process that goes against decades of training before. Sometimes negotiators are seen 'apart' from the rest. It's not easy but I want to see much more training.
I'd agree but hey, it seems people ignore lessons from the past. When people continually don't get convicted the Police will be more likely to take the law into their own hands. And yes, training for law enforcement is an easy cut to make when balancing your budget.
Something needs to be cleared up that's been bothering me. I said "white nationalism" earlier as though it should be distinguished from "white supremacy". I meant racial prejudice, not white nationalism.
Too often people kindly acknowledge the right of the Nazi to not call himself a "white supremacist". Even on Wikipedia (and even the Southern Poverty Law Center) there is distinguishment made between...
White Supremacists White Separatists White Nationalists
And in interviews with these people, the interview concedes when corrected the person says, "I'm not a white supremacist - I don't believe white people are superior", and the interview starts calling them by their preferred term (usually white separatist or white nationalist).
The point I'm trying to make is that white separatism and white nationalism IS white supremacy. Think about it. WHY would these people want whites separated from other races (white separatism) or to create a whites only nation (white nationalism) if they truly believed that other races were just as good as white people?
There is a reason why they say white genocide when talking about miscegenation. To these people, it doesn't matter if white have offspring or not...it's only THEIR (white people's) offspring if they are of the correct race. So even though white people will continue through their posterity, it loses ALL value if whiteness isn't retained.
The argument used is that races are culturally so different that it is in everyone's interests to live separately. Personally I think that's rubbish and I agree with you that the distinction is not worth making.
Okay, so what do you guys think about Trump's hands off approach as president, particularly concerning the military?
Slate ran an article a while back basically saying that because Trump is unhinged that it's a good thing. I think that way of looking at it is poop.
Regardless of your opinion of the president, the fact remains that he is still a civilian, and civilian control of our military is a vital component of any true democracy. Relegating responsibility even to the point where military men in the administration have the ability to "override" the president, is not a good thing at all. I get that Trump wants more time for golf and to have someone to blame if things go wrong, but a war machine cannot run itself and we are headed for war.
I don't know if people grasp the seriousness of this situation - a civilian president's total liberation and empowerment of the military industrial complex.
Honestly, nothing much benefits from being managed by Trump. He's unreasonable and a racist/bigot, so the less he does the better off the world will be.
Okay, so what do you guys think about Trump's hands off approach as president, particularly concerning the military?
Slate ran an article a while back basically saying that because Trump is unhinged that it's a good thing. I think that way of looking at it is poop.
Regardless of your opinion of the president, the fact remains that he is still a civilian, and civilian control of our military is a vital component of any true democracy. Relegating responsibility even to the point where military men in the administration have the ability to "override" the president, is not a good thing at all. I get that Trump wants more time for golf and to have someone to blame if things go wrong, but a war machine cannot run itself and we are headed for war.
I don't know if people grasp the seriousness of this situation - a civilian president's total liberation and empowerment of the military industrial complex.
This is true. As he has come under siege, there have only been two constants: family members and sycophants as advisors, and surrounding himself with Generals (3 of them) who are doing all the heavy lifting. This is, historically, a recipe for disaster.
Okay, so what do you guys think about Trump's hands off approach as president, particularly concerning the military?
Slate ran an article a while back basically saying that because Trump is unhinged that it's a good thing. I think that way of looking at it is poop.
Regardless of your opinion of the president, the fact remains that he is still a civilian, and civilian control of our military is a vital component of any true democracy. Relegating responsibility even to the point where military men in the administration have the ability to "override" the president, is not a good thing at all. I get that Trump wants more time for golf and to have someone to blame if things go wrong, but a war machine cannot run itself and we are headed for war.
I don't know if people grasp the seriousness of this situation - a civilian president's total liberation and empowerment of the military industrial complex.
I am going to praise Trump here (but only for a second)
Even though he isn't as hands on as Obama was regarding military operations, he is still allowing his generals to do their job, and hopefully hold them more accountable than they have been in the past.
Many generals have cornered presidents into action with persuasive fear mongering arguments, but they never "override" the sitting presidents decision.
His alleged reaction prior to committing more troops to Afghanistan is an example of this. Not only was he surly with his generals, he asked them to provide measurable criteria about the operation that can label it a success. Allegedly they shrugged their shoulders and couldn't think of what that could be for the region, however Trump is demanding it, and will measure their performance against it.
They can no longer spin their wheels like they've been doing since December 2014, when NATO ended its operation. Goals need to be established, and an exit strategy must be put in place. They can't pass the blame up the chain anymore, and shouldn't. This isn't his operation. He shouldn't (and even Obama) shouldn't have to come up with an exit strategy to the mess he inherited. The people who've been there since the beginning, the generals, need to do this, or they need to be replaced by someone who can come up with a reliable exit strategy for the region (which will probably be a privatized military hired jointly by some corporation and the Afghan government).
If Trump survives his first term, this will probably be one of his legacies, ending the war in Afghanistan (leaving the foreign country better or worse is still debatable).
The ACLU was forced to apologize after tweeting a picture of a white baby with a free speech t-shirt on. Later tweeting "When your Twitter followers keep you in check and remind you that white supremacy is everywhere." with a "good point" GIF. I don't know what to say anymore. White supremacy is now code word for anything not explictly anti white. Ordinary people would see the message, not search for racial undertones where they don't exist. Even worse is the constant capitulation and thus validation of it that only serves to strengthen this nonsense that has now become so pervasive.
You can look at this shocking display of white supremacy if you want. Trigger warning though.
Comments
Illegally grazing on federal land, taking over federal buildings and getting in shootouts and pointing guns at federal officials doing their jobs is totally different. Presumably this ruling will convince law enforcement that they need to pull a Waco, TX next time and just assault the compound and skip the trial since it seems people are determined to undermine the rule of law.
This is another great time to point out that most of the money that goes IN to the federal coffers comes from blue states, and most that goes OUT goes to red states.
I think the film you're probably referring to is The Founding of a Republic. I agree that the stars in that worked for free, but I'm not sure that provides much evidence they were motivated to do so for the good of the country. It's not unusual for film and music stars to make some unpaid appearances.
Communities can certainly survive and thrive on the basis that everyone is helping each other. However, I think for that to be successful there needs to be a powerful and shared philosophy. In the case of the Amish that's religious, but that's not essential. Most communes started in the 1960s had economic and social roots for instance and, while in most cases those were short-lived, some have been successful. Gaining widespread acceptance to that type of philosophy in a large nation state though I think is a different matter.
Literally, the guy glanced up in the direction of the eclipse for like one second before putting on the glasses. But regardless...
Anyone who sees that front page or other MSM/MSM social media coverage will come away with a completely different impression from reality. As if he just stood and gawked during the entire eclipse. Now overt partisans can try and deny this by claiming that one second is dangerous or blah blah whatever...but the fact remains that the initial impression is a completely different thing.
It's an utter shame that I had to preface this point with a political disclosure, but that's just how things are these days...sadly, on both sides of the political isle.
As a Marxist socialist, my personal opinion is that the press should be non-profit and free from private interests. It should be publicly owned and overseen by ethics committees comprised of private citizens. But I understand many will disagree with this. That's fine...but at least demand more of our institutions.
As someone who is neither liberal nor conservative I am looking at this from the outside and am telling you that the country deserves better...from both Trump AND the mainstream media. It should never be the prerogative of any free press to manipulate and socially engineer a populace towards political ends, and just because they may appear to be on your side doesn't make it right. All the media is doing with shit like this is reinforcing Trump's claims about fake news and causing people to lose faith in the free press which, if he were a little more clever than what he actually is, could do some major damage.
The media and the president both are behaving very irresponsibly and the nation deserves better than this. The sad thing is that Trump will be gone someday. The disgusting, lying, overtly partisan and deceptive "free" press is something we're permanently stuck with.
Trump would know a thing or two about lying to the media and making up fake news since he used to post as his own publicist under the aliases John Baron and John Miller where he'd plant stories about how how great Donald Trump is at getting the ladies.
There's a Wikipedia page about Donald Trump pseudonyms. Seems he would lie about stuff then if he got away with it great for him and if he got called out on it pretend it was a "joke gone away.". Haha lying to people what a great joke, right?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_pseudonyms
He also lied about claiming to have a source that proved Barrack Obama was not born in the US which he somehow never disclosed.
Anyway, Trump has shown how a liar can subvert the press. That doesn't make the press bad, it shows that conscience free liars like Trump can break the system. It's a good thing most people are not like him.
So it didn't say that "Trump only stared at the sun." You are really grasping, aren't you?
Sorry to say, but an established national newspaper should be above front pages like that. The "not too bright" was childish to say the least. Couple that with the fact that it was insinuated, on the front page, that Trump called the eclipse warnings "fake news" (taking a liberty based on earlier Trump rhetoric, but patently false just the same), as well as using the word "stare" (definition:to gaze fixedly and intently) when it was in fact a quick glance, just easily demonstrates that the press is what any reasonable person would call...well...biased as fuck.
And I've seen countless examples of this bias from both the right-wing, left-wing, and everything in between media. It's disgusting and the people deserve better. There's no defending it.
Define press, is it all media? Television, print, internet, radio? What about documentaries? or media that can be considered press, but is more entertainment based such as gaming, or sports magazines. What if that other media, starts inserting politics into stories, such as how a players refuse to attend an invitation to the White House?
How many, and who exactly would be on this ethics committee? Just ordinary citizens? historians or political hacks? scientist, other journalist? How does one get appointed to such a position, and how would corruption and bribery be curbed from happening?
If you take the profit out of the media outlets, how will it be paid for? How will the ethics committee be paid for? To put into perspective, it costs Canadians 1.1 Billion dollars for the CBC alone, which still uses advertising.
If the message is wrong, or controversial, who will hold the press accountable if it is no longer a for profit?
A sorta start up here in Canada called Rebel News (an far right news organization) is pretty much folding after their coverage of Charlottesville, as employees, advertisers and politicians are distancing themselves from it.
How do you prevent people from starting their own publication, using their own resources? What if someone does, what is the punishment to prevent them from doing it again?
The vague notion of a non-profit press can seem ideal, until you start digging and asking questions about how it would actually work in a society. That doesn't mean a non-profit can't exist either, on the contrary. CSPAN works well as an unfiltered view into what is happening in American politics and one can just watch that, and tune out all other opinions if they would like to form their own uninfluenced one. But having only one organization (the government) in control of the press just leads to propaganda and it's own distorted message.
As I've said, I KNEW this was coming as a major olive branch to his white nationalist base after he had to make the tepid statements denouncing them after Charlottesville. His ACTIONS are going to be to pardon this racist, CRIMINAL icon of the anti-immigrant, white nationalist movement. Are there ANY modern examples of a President pardoning a major public figure like this that didn't occur at the end of the Administration, but within the first 8 months?? Post-Nixon??
The *real* problem with the Bundy folks are their connections to violent fringe groups like Posse Comitatus--these people are in the "sovereign citizen" movement and they believe that the Federal government has *no* authority over them whatsoever. If you start researching that movement be aware that the rabbit hole is astonishingly deep.
The system is rigged. States where hardly anyone lives have a disproportionate amount of influence on the states where the most Americans actually live.
A flyover red state, such as say Wyoming, gets the same amount of Senators as California and New York which have far more Americans.
Red states are overepresented in the House due to gerrymandering and rules from 1913 that limit the amount of Representatives states get. California should get at least 13 more House seats.
Tiny red States are also disproportionately represented in the electoral college which has twice in recent years given the presidency to the guy that lost the popular vote so less Americans voted for the president and the person who did not win got more votes.
How about a little respect for us liberals who subsidize you? How about getting out of our lives and stop trying to dictate our freedoms? I thought you guys were"free market"? So the free market doesn't support you, it supports the bigger states, you should be all good with that.
Now if only we can get NYT's attitude to influence the rest of the left and the Democratic Party. Maybe start with outing the Deputy Chair and former black seperatist and member of a hate group that calls whites devils and demonizes the jews and defends the murderers of U.S soldiers. It's like the man fits in reverse every fever dream that can possibly be made up about Trump.
The regressive left often doesn't even try to make excuses for their belief that anti white racism is at best a neutral thing and at worst a good. Take, for example, the attempts to rewrite the definition of racism so that only whites may be racist because institutional power or some other thoroughly subjective metric.
Please, no more Waco fiascos. There is a big push for conflict negotiation training in LE agencies, but it is a slow process that goes against decades of training before. Sometimes negotiators are seen 'apart' from the rest. It's not easy but I want to see much more training.
Too often people kindly acknowledge the right of the Nazi to not call himself a "white supremacist". Even on Wikipedia (and even the Southern Poverty Law Center) there is distinguishment made between...
White Supremacists
White Separatists
White Nationalists
And in interviews with these people, the interview concedes when corrected the person says, "I'm not a white supremacist - I don't believe white people are superior", and the interview starts calling them by their preferred term (usually white separatist or white nationalist).
The point I'm trying to make is that white separatism and white nationalism IS white supremacy. Think about it. WHY would these people want whites separated from other races (white separatism) or to create a whites only nation (white nationalism) if they truly believed that other races were just as good as white people?
There is a reason why they say white genocide when talking about miscegenation. To these people, it doesn't matter if white have offspring or not...it's only THEIR (white people's) offspring if they are of the correct race. So even though white people will continue through their posterity, it loses ALL value if whiteness isn't retained.
That's white supremacy.
Slate ran an article a while back basically saying that because Trump is unhinged that it's a good thing. I think that way of looking at it is poop.
Regardless of your opinion of the president, the fact remains that he is still a civilian, and civilian control of our military is a vital component of any true democracy. Relegating responsibility even to the point where military men in the administration have the ability to "override" the president, is not a good thing at all. I get that Trump wants more time for golf and to have someone to blame if things go wrong, but a war machine cannot run itself and we are headed for war.
I don't know if people grasp the seriousness of this situation - a civilian president's total liberation and empowerment of the military industrial complex.
Even though he isn't as hands on as Obama was regarding military operations, he is still allowing his generals to do their job, and hopefully hold them more accountable than they have been in the past.
Many generals have cornered presidents into action with persuasive fear mongering arguments, but they never "override" the sitting presidents decision.
His alleged reaction prior to committing more troops to Afghanistan is an example of this. Not only was he surly with his generals, he asked them to provide measurable criteria about the operation that can label it a success. Allegedly they shrugged their shoulders and couldn't think of what that could be for the region, however Trump is demanding it, and will measure their performance against it.
They can no longer spin their wheels like they've been doing since December 2014, when NATO ended its operation. Goals need to be established, and an exit strategy must be put in place. They can't pass the blame up the chain anymore, and shouldn't. This isn't his operation. He shouldn't (and even Obama) shouldn't have to come up with an exit strategy to the mess he inherited. The people who've been there since the beginning, the generals, need to do this, or they need to be replaced by someone who can come up with a reliable exit strategy for the region (which will probably be a privatized military hired jointly by some corporation and the Afghan government).
If Trump survives his first term, this will probably be one of his legacies, ending the war in Afghanistan (leaving the foreign country better or worse is still debatable).
Or exit strategy - run away with tail between legs.
There are no other options no matter how hard you look for them.
The person he retweeted who sent that meme posted this on his account 4 days ago:
You can look at this shocking display of white supremacy if you want. Trigger warning though.
https://mobile.twitter.com/ACLU/status/900459882989600768