In the last 4 hours Trump has 1.) accused any American Jew who supports a Democrat of disloyalty (which is about 10,000x more antisemitic than anything Ilhan Omar has ever said) and 2.) has cancelled his meeting with the Prime Minister of Denmark because she doesn't want to discuss selling Greenland. Just your average Tuesday in Idiocracy. For the record, this proves what Ilhan Omar said about "dual loyalty" was 110% correct. Who the fuck is he talking about being disloyal to?? Israel?? Why are American Jews required to show fealty to Israel to prove their bonafides?? Again, this assumption that they should HAVE to do so and HAVE to support one party is exactly what I said above. It is so far and away more offensive than anything Omar has said that it defies comparison. Pledge loyalty to Netanyahu's corrupt regime, or be labeled a traitor to your religion. Funny, I remember a time when the right was having fits about Obama's "apology tour" in Europe. Now we have a Republican President who thinks swearing loyalty to a foreign nation is some sort of litmus test for how "American" you are.
As for the Greenland issue, this was good for a few laughs the day the news came out. It's been half a week now, and the President of the United States is still not only engaged in talking about this nonsense, but is actually cancelling diplomatic meetings because he thinks it's a negotiating tactic to purchase a piece of real estate. It's unfathomably stupid, but shows just how ridiculous things have gotten. Why doesn't he purchase Pluto while he's at it since it's no longer considered a planet. This shit is so DUMB.
Trump's actions may well be stupid when considered from the perspective of what's good for the country, but he only appears interested in what's good for him personally. In relation to the loyalty of Jews, Trump knows that a large majority of US Jews oppose him - so he doesn't have anything to lose electorally from pissing them off. The exception to that opposition majority are Republican Jews, who funnel most of the Jewish political funds - and that seems unlikely to be affected by his remarks.
While he therefore may not have much to lose, there are potential gains. Trump gets a lot of support from radical groups with anti-semitic tendencies - so making statements that can be seen by such groups as supporting their views helps to solidify that support. At the same time Trump can claim he's supporting Israel, which plays well with more mainstream Republicans, who have become used to the idea that uncritical support for Israel is a good thing.
The risk to the country is that this sort of statement is likely to deepen divisions within US society and stir up anti-semitism, but I don't suppose that would be seen as a problem by Trump.
Trump's actions may well be stupid when considered from the perspective of what's good for the country, but he only appears interested in what's good for him personally. In relation to the loyalty of Jews, Trump knows that a large majority of US Jews oppose him - so he doesn't have anything to lose electorally from pissing them off. The exception to that opposition majority are Republican Jews, who funnel most of the Jewish political funds - and that seems unlikely to be affected by his remarks.
While he therefore may not have much to lose, there are potential gains. Trump gets a lot of support from radical groups with anti-semitic tendencies - so making statements that can be seen by such groups as supporting their views helps to solidify that support. At the same time Trump can claim he's supporting Israel, which plays well with more mainstream Republicans, who have become used to the idea that uncritical support for Israel is a good thing.
The risk to the country is that this sort of statement is likely to deepen divisions within US society and stir up anti-semitism, but I don't suppose that would be seen as a problem by Trump.
With his base, sure. But there are alot of eldery Jewish voters in Florida, a state Trump absolutely cannot under any circumstances afford to lose. Holding Ohio and Florida is 100% essential to his reelection. There is no path to 270 without them. Trump is either going to squeak by with an even greater popular vote loss, or get completely wiped out. I don't see a middle ground. 50/50 coin flip.
As for Greenland, it reminds me of something (of all people) the Mooch said the other day. He said it isn't so much that Trump is a raging racist as that he doesn't view human beings as people, he simply sees them as vehicles or obstacles to his own power and gratification. Sometimes when I'm in the mood, I rewatch Sopranos clips on Youtube, and I'm personally struck in hindsight of just how HORRIBLE Tony was as a human being (completely aside from the murdering and racketeering) and how much worse he got over time. Then I read the comment sections and feel even worse, because the majority of the people commenting seemed to have missed the entire point of the show, and instead of seeing him an uncontrollable sociopath, view him as some kind of paragon of masculinity to be emulated.
Trump's actions may well be stupid when considered from the perspective of what's good for the country, but he only appears interested in what's good for him personally. In relation to the loyalty of Jews, Trump knows that a large majority of US Jews oppose him - so he doesn't have anything to lose electorally from pissing them off. The exception to that opposition majority are Republican Jews, who funnel most of the Jewish political funds - and that seems unlikely to be affected by his remarks.
While he therefore may not have much to lose, there are potential gains....
Ocram's razor is that there's no deeper layer than he's a backwards thinking lying jerk.
I'm curious, should we show loyalty to France, which is literally America's oldest ally? Britain, the nation we split off from and the European nation most similar to America?
No? I remember "Freedom fries" because France had the audacity to say no to the Iraq invasion.
Why the hell are Republicans so hidebound about sticking to Israel? "But they're the only non-Muslims in the Middle East" used to sound logical to me, but lately it seems to go a bit beyond that.
Why the hell are Republicans so hidebound about sticking to Israel? "But they're the only non-Muslims in the Middle East" used to sound logical to me, but lately it seems to go a bit beyond that.
Many Republicans are also evangelicals and evangelicals keep a keen eye on Israel--if Israel can completely recapture control of its "biblical" lands and the Temple of Solomon gets rebuilt then those events will signal the beginning of the Second Coming. No, I am not kidding. They differ only as to whether they think the Rapture will happen just before the Tribulation, during it, or just as it ends. In any event, rebuilding the Temple would necessitate the demolition of the Al Aqsa and I doubt anyone who isn't an extremist wants to kick that hornet's nest.
On a completely unrelated note, this is page 343 and 343 = 7^3 or 7*7*7.
Why the hell are Republicans so hidebound about sticking to Israel? "But they're the only non-Muslims in the Middle East" used to sound logical to me, but lately it seems to go a bit beyond that.
Many Republicans are also evangelicals and evangelicals keep a keen eye on Israel--if Israel can completely recapture control of its "biblical" lands and the Temple of Solomon gets rebuilt then those events will signal the beginning of the Second Coming. No, I am not kidding. They differ only as to whether they think the Rapture will happen just before the Tribulation, during it, or just as it ends. In any event, rebuilding the Temple would necessitate the demolition of the Al Aqsa and I doubt anyone who isn't an extremist wants to kick that hornet's nest.
Yeah, I was going to mention that, but decided not to because it was a bit accusatory.
For other, RATIONAL people, what does it imply about certain people that they want to see THE END OF THE WORLD?
On a completely unrelated note, this is page 343 and 343 = 7^3 or 7*7*7.
Actually both 3 and 7 are supposed to be holy numbers.
In the UK Brexit appears ever more likely to proceed on 31 October on the basis of a no deal. Johnson has told the EU any deal would have to involve scrapping entirely the 'backstop' - intended to guarantee there would be no return to a hard border between Northern Ireland and (southern) Ireland. That's despite the fact that is something the UK is committed to under the Good Friday Agreement and the fact that the form of backstop agreed in Theresa May's deal was actually designed by the UK, not the EU.
The EU is committed to supporting Ireland to uphold its own commitments under the Good Friday Agreement and there seems no prospect that will change (the EU negotiating strategy has always emphasized the need to maintain a common cause among its members and that makes pragmatic sense, quite apart from the moral aspect of stitching up Ireland). It's hard to believe Johnson really believes the EU will give ground here, so the logical alternative is that he's presenting them with an unacceptable solution in order to try and blame them when a no deal happens. The government's real view about the prospects for a deal is perhaps clearer in the decision just taken not to attend general EU meetings after the end of next week - effectively accepting that there will not be a deal with a transitional period.
It's still possible that Parliament will prevent a no deal Brexit, but even though there's a clear majority wishing to do that, the mechanics required are not straight-forward. Partly that reflects that not all Conservatives that are against no deal would be willing to bring down the government. It also reflects logistical difficulties in non-government MPs bringing forward legislation. There are also possibilities that the government will try and prevent Parliament sitting at all, or that Johnson would refuse to resign if there was a no-confidence vote and try and call an election instead (after Brexit). That's probably illegal, but the relevant law is relatively new and not yet tested, so preventing such an action could be difficult.
Another decision of significance is the announcement this week that free movement for EU nationals will no longer apply from the date of Brexit. May's government had previously promised there would be a transitional period up to the end of 2020 in which the several million EU nationals in the UK would continue to have the right to remain. They still will theoretically have those rights, but will need to have applied for settled status by 31 October (assuming that's the Brexit date). A large proportion of EU nationals have not yet applied (unsurprising given they were promised several times they would have a grace period after Brexit to do that), so in the short time remaining there is plenty of scope for chaos and confusion. It seems highly likely that there will be lots of EU nationals who leave the UK on holiday, only to find they can't get back in - either because they've not applied for settled status or because their applications have been lost or misfiled.
If the UK does leave on 31st October without a deal, I wonder if it will be days or only hours after that before a government spokesman expresses their shock and dismay that the EU are insisting that the contents of what would have been the withdrawal deal must be accepted prior to any discussions of a potential trade deal ...
In the UK Brexit appears ever more likely to proceed on 31 October on the basis of a no deal. Johnson has told the EU any deal would have to involve scrapping entirely the 'backstop' - intended to guarantee there would be no return to a hard border between Northern Ireland and (southern) Ireland. That's despite the fact that is something the UK is committed to under the Good Friday Agreement and the fact that the form of backstop agreed in Theresa May's deal was actually designed by the UK, not the EU.
The EU is committed to supporting Ireland to uphold its own commitments under the Good Friday Agreement and there seems no prospect that will change (the EU negotiating strategy has always emphasized the need to maintain a common cause among its members and that makes pragmatic sense, quite apart from the moral aspect of stitching up Ireland). It's hard to believe Johnson really believes the EU will give ground here, so the logical alternative is that he's presenting them with an unacceptable solution in order to try and blame them when a no deal happens. The government's real view about the prospects for a deal is perhaps clearer in the decision just taken not to attend general EU meetings after the end of next week - effectively accepting that there will not be a deal with a transitional period.
It's still possible that Parliament will prevent a no deal Brexit, but even though there's a clear majority wishing to do that, the mechanics required are not straight-forward. Partly that reflects that not all Conservatives that are against no deal would be willing to bring down the government. It also reflects logistical difficulties in non-government MPs bringing forward legislation. There are also possibilities that the government will try and prevent Parliament sitting at all, or that Johnson would refuse to resign if there was a no-confidence vote and try and call an election instead (after Brexit). That's probably illegal, but the relevant law is relatively new and not yet tested, so preventing such an action could be difficult.
Another decision of significance is the announcement this week that free movement for EU nationals will no longer apply from the date of Brexit. May's government had previously promised there would be a transitional period up to the end of 2020 in which the several million EU nationals in the UK would continue to have the right to remain. They still will theoretically have those rights, but will need to have applied for settled status by 31 October (assuming that's the Brexit date). A large proportion of EU nationals have not yet applied (unsurprising given they were promised several times they would have a grace period after Brexit to do that), so in the short time remaining there is plenty of scope for chaos and confusion. It seems highly likely that there will be lots of EU nationals who leave the UK on holiday, only to find they can't get back in - either because they've not applied for settled status or because their applications have been lost or misfiled.
If the UK does leave on 31st October without a deal, I wonder if it will be days or only hours after that before a government spokesman expresses their shock and dismay that the EU are insisting that the contents of what would have been the withdrawal deal must be accepted prior to any discussions of a potential trade deal ...
So - if the UK goes with a hard Brexit, that will mean (among other things) that there is a hard border between Ireland and North Ireland, right?
Which would invalidate (or perhaps, just renege upon) part of the Good Friday Agreement, right? If that were to happen... what happens next? Do you think Ireland and the UK would negotiate a new treaty? Would they have to get an agreement with the EU (I guess it wouldnt make sense. Since an open border with Ireland essentially means the whole EU due to the rights given to EU member states).
Is there a worst case scenario where something like The Troubles start spooling up again?
Is there a hard Brexit (or even a revised soft brexit without the backstop) plan in place for what happens with Ireland?
How did European union who started as an "freedom of trade/freedom of movement" become an centralized bureaucracy with one currency, tons of regulations and in future, one army?
How did European union who started as an "freedom of trade/freedom of movement" become an centralized bureaucracy with one currency, tons of regulations and in future, one army?
I don't know, why don't you read 50 pages or so on the matter and get back to us instead of asking rhetorical questions?
In the UK Brexit appears ever more likely to proceed on 31 October on the basis of a no deal. Johnson has told the EU any deal would have to involve scrapping entirely the 'backstop' - intended to guarantee there would be no return to a hard border between Northern Ireland and (southern) Ireland. That's despite the fact that is something the UK is committed to under the Good Friday Agreement and the fact that the form of backstop agreed in Theresa May's deal was actually designed by the UK, not the EU.
The EU is committed to supporting Ireland to uphold its own commitments under the Good Friday Agreement and there seems no prospect that will change (the EU negotiating strategy has always emphasized the need to maintain a common cause among its members and that makes pragmatic sense, quite apart from the moral aspect of stitching up Ireland). It's hard to believe Johnson really believes the EU will give ground here, so the logical alternative is that he's presenting them with an unacceptable solution in order to try and blame them when a no deal happens. The government's real view about the prospects for a deal is perhaps clearer in the decision just taken not to attend general EU meetings after the end of next week - effectively accepting that there will not be a deal with a transitional period.
It's still possible that Parliament will prevent a no deal Brexit, but even though there's a clear majority wishing to do that, the mechanics required are not straight-forward. Partly that reflects that not all Conservatives that are against no deal would be willing to bring down the government. It also reflects logistical difficulties in non-government MPs bringing forward legislation. There are also possibilities that the government will try and prevent Parliament sitting at all, or that Johnson would refuse to resign if there was a no-confidence vote and try and call an election instead (after Brexit). That's probably illegal, but the relevant law is relatively new and not yet tested, so preventing such an action could be difficult.
Another decision of significance is the announcement this week that free movement for EU nationals will no longer apply from the date of Brexit. May's government had previously promised there would be a transitional period up to the end of 2020 in which the several million EU nationals in the UK would continue to have the right to remain. They still will theoretically have those rights, but will need to have applied for settled status by 31 October (assuming that's the Brexit date). A large proportion of EU nationals have not yet applied (unsurprising given they were promised several times they would have a grace period after Brexit to do that), so in the short time remaining there is plenty of scope for chaos and confusion. It seems highly likely that there will be lots of EU nationals who leave the UK on holiday, only to find they can't get back in - either because they've not applied for settled status or because their applications have been lost or misfiled.
If the UK does leave on 31st October without a deal, I wonder if it will be days or only hours after that before a government spokesman expresses their shock and dismay that the EU are insisting that the contents of what would have been the withdrawal deal must be accepted prior to any discussions of a potential trade deal ...
So - if the UK goes with a hard Brexit, that will mean (among other things) that there is a hard border between Ireland and North Ireland, right?
Which would invalidate (or perhaps, just renege upon) part of the Good Friday Agreement, right? If that were to happen... what happens next? Do you think Ireland and the UK would negotiate a new treaty? Would they have to get an agreement with the EU (I guess it wouldnt make sense. Since an open border with Ireland essentially means the whole EU due to the rights given to EU member states).
Is there a worst case scenario where something like The Troubles start spooling up again?
Is there a hard Brexit (or even a revised soft brexit without the backstop) plan in place for what happens with Ireland?
It depends what you mean by a hard border. There would definitely have to be some form of checks on the movement of goods, but the UK government would like those to be done away from the border using approaches like communications technology and 'trusted trader' schemes to do this. That may be possible and the EU has not ruled that out. The backstop was, genuinely, a backstop against the failure of these types of arrangements (which are not currently in place anywhere in the world) rather than an intended outcome.
However, there is certainly a risk there will be a need for more traditional border controls and the current failure to produce a plan that will definitely avoid that is arguably inconsistent with the commitment under the Good Friday Agreement to avoid any hard border.
I don't have much feel for Irish politics, but my expectation is that there will be a period where everyone blames everyone else for problems. As you say the EU will certainly be unhappy with the potential for an unregulated backdoor into the single market. The Irish will be unhappy with anything that creates a distinction between northern and southern Ireland. The British will be unhappy that we've left the EU, but are still being told to comply with EU regulations. All that is likely to have a real impact on trade as well as an impact on political views.
I think following that period of disruption a likely outcome will be to activate another aspect of the Good Friday Agreement. That provides that the UK and Irish governments are required (have to do it, not just given discretion to do it) to hold a referendum on a united Ireland as soon as it appears there are majorities for that in both Northern Ireland and Ireland. I think it's extremely likely that it will become apparent post-Brexit that there are such majorities.
If a referendum were not then held the prospects for increased paramilitary activity from the IRA side would increase. However, the Troubles were never just about the IRA vs the British - a very large part was the IRA fighting against protestant / unionist paramilitaries. Those latter groups have been inactive for a while, but they are not dead and a referendum result in favor of a united Ireland could very easily spark violence from them.
The reason why the Good Friday Agreement has been pretty successful is that it's a fudge - it allows both sides to feel that they've got what they want. People in Northern Ireland are free to regard themselves as either British or Irish (or both). Politicians making such a fuss about the proposed backstop has just served to highlight that the constitutional issues smoothed over by the Good Friday Agreement are still contentious and I think the Troubles are still too recent in memory for a final resolution to be possible on these issues in the near future. I'm not therefore too optimistic about everything in Ireland sorting itself out smoothly over the next few years.
We have had some contentious discussion in this thread over the past several pages, and the moderating team has noticed a distinct shift in tone that cannot continue. Questioning another forumite's integrity is against Rule 1 of the thread, and Rule 7 also states that any reports of rulebreaking (trolling, posting in bad faith, etc.) can only be made using the "Flag" feature--they cannot be made publicly, in-thread. There have been several examples of this, which the moderating team is currently addressing privately.
In the future, bear in mind that while ideas, trends, and public figures are subject to criticism, your fellow forumites are not.
Why the hell are Republicans so hidebound about sticking to Israel? "But they're the only non-Muslims in the Middle East" used to sound logical to me, but lately it seems to go a bit beyond that.
Many Republicans are also evangelicals and evangelicals keep a keen eye on Israel--if Israel can completely recapture control of its "biblical" lands and the Temple of Solomon gets rebuilt then those events will signal the beginning of the Second Coming. No, I am not kidding. They differ only as to whether they think the Rapture will happen just before the Tribulation, during it, or just as it ends. In any event, rebuilding the Temple would necessitate the demolition of the Al Aqsa and I doubt anyone who isn't an extremist wants to kick that hornet's nest.
On a completely unrelated note, this is page 343 and 343 = 7^3 or 7*7*7.
What they conveniently leave out of their "support" of the Jews of Israel is that in the end, a victorious Jesus Christ will descend and demand they all convert to Christianity or be destroyed like everyone else. In other words, invalidating their entire religion. In the end, they are forced to submit or die like everyone else. They are just last on the list of the cannon fodder in the Revelations-inspired fever dream of the radical relgious right. Mind you, alot of this stuff isn't even IN the Bible. It's fan-fiction mainly pushed by influential mega-pastors and televangelists that millions of people subscribe to the idea of. I guarantee you more of these people get their ideas from the "Left Behind" series than the Bible itself.
The Amazon Rainforest is not only the largest forest in the world - it is often called the "Lungs of the World". More than 20 percent of the world oxygen is produced in the Amazon Rainforest.
A few days ago, land owners in the Amazon region promoted a "fire day" (Brazilian news source article in portuguese) where they started several fires in the area to accelerate the deforestation process and to "show service" to president Boslonaro.
So now the Amazon in Brazil, has been on fire for several days.
Conservationists have blamed Jair Bolsonaro for the Amazon's plight, saying he has encouraged loggers and farmers to clear the land, and scientists say the rainforest has suffered losses at an accelerated rate since he took office in January.
These fires set by loggers eager to show Bolsanro that they are "ready to work" can be seen from space.
Smoke from the burning Amazon Rainforest plunged Brazil's largest city into darkness in the middle of the day. I gotta imagine that their air is now or will soon be filled with ash particles making the very air Brazilians are breathing totally toxic. Greedy farmers are destroying the Earth. To me, this is the type of thing, destroying the planet we all live on that should result in action: regime change, sanctions. These actions are not just affecting Brazil.
Why the smoke only moved south? Not North or East or West? Anyway, cloudy climate is not uncommon in winter. Bolsonaro din't removed an SINGLE regulation, land owners on Amazonas still required to preserve at least 60%(not sure) of the nature on his lands.
And using the link that you posted “The particulate matter, coming from the smoke produced by these large wildfires that are happening in Bolivia, coupled with the cold, humid air that is off the coast of São Paulo, caused the darkness,” Franco Vilela, a meteorologist at Inmet, told Globo.
Why the media isn't showing reports about Bolivian wildfires?
The climate in South America isn't just an big forest tropical mass. On Chile for eg you can see dry deserts in north and 20m tall glaciers in south... Snowed in my city some years ago (video in spoilers), São Paulo is almost 4 000 km away from Manaus...
The TL;DR of it is that warm air rises at the equator because it is the hottest until it hits a point it can't rise any more but can't sink because of more warm air rising below it. Then the earth's rotation pulls the hot air towards the pole. This happens in the stratosphere.
That happens invisibly. Except for VERY severe thunderstorms, clouds normally don't get high enough to get into the stratosphere, they nucleate because it gets too cold to have water as a gas and precipitate out as rainfall. So you would not normally SEE this happening.
Ash/dust from plinian+ volcanic eruptions and very large fires and nuclear explosions CAN get enough lift to get into the stratosphere, because it doesn't nucleate and precipitate out like water does. Basically the ash is acting like food coloring in water, allowing you to see the true flow of the air. As an aside, this also happens to be why if you look at old videos of nuclear waepon tests, you can sometimes see narrow columns of smoke they started in order to see what happens to the air flow in the tests.
Edit-Also, because air is a fluid, it flows to replace where it is displaced. At/near the surface, the tradewinds move southeast to northwest down there in Brazil. Therefore, there must be some mechanism for the air to get from the northwest to the southeast. Hence the "cell".
And seeing this map, you can see how Brazil is much more "green" than neighbor countries
Frankly I am distressed by how much brown there is in Brazil. That green you are touting? It used to go ALL THE WAY EAST TO THE COAST. Do you see any green in the right side of your picture? No. It is brown.
I'm obviously concerned that Bolsonaro doesn't believe in climate change and is therefore prepared to act in ways that increase that problem. I also though think its a major problem that he's prepared to lie about the evidence of what's happening. A bit like Trump, he's perfectly willing to say things are not happening even when proof is clear and obvious - satellite images from multiple sources show an increase in deforestation since Bolsonaro took office and saying something different won't change that.
The BBC have run several stories prior to the one that @smeagolheart linked above. Those refer to the argument between the head of the Brazilian space agency and Bolsonaro. The agency is responsible for the satellite system set up in 2004 to monitor deforestation in the Amazon. That data shows that deforestation has increased rapidly since Bolsonaro took office and is now running at about twice the previous highest recorded level. Bolsonaro's response to the agency publishing this information was to criticize and then sack the head of the agency. Plans are currently being drawn up to put in place a new monitoring system that will report lower levels of deforestation (presumably with the intention of satisfying the requirements Brazil agreed to under the Paris climate accord) - but that won't change the data being collected by satellites used by other countries ...
The Trump Administration is now seeking to hold migrants INDEFINITELY. In other words, totally outside the bounds of the law and due process. This is on the heels of them saying they will NOT provide flu shots to those being held despite 3 people having already died from the flu, and crowded situations where a virus can spread like wildfire. At this point I can only assume they are actively attempting to kill people while maintaining the thinnest veneer of plausible deniability possible. No, I'm not joking. The punishment they are attempting to inflict on these people is so far and away disproportionate to whatever crime they may have committed that it defies belief. If the "goal" is to not have them in the country, why are they now seeking to hold them for as long as they please?? Indefinite detention without a trial is a fundamental abuse of basic human rights.
The Trump Administration is now seeking to hold migrants INDEFINITELY. In other words, totally outside the bounds of the law and due process. This is on the heels of them saying they will NOT provide flu shots to those being held despite 3 people having already died from the flu, and crowded situations where a virus can spread like wildfire. At this point I can only assume they are actively attempting to kill people while maintaining the thinnest veneer of plausible deniability possible. No, I'm not joking. The punishment they are attempting to inflict on these people is so far and away disproportionate to whatever crime they may have committed that it defies belief. If the "goal" is to not have them in the country, why are they now seeking to hold them for as long as they please?? Indefinite detention without a trial is a fundamental abuse of basic human rights.
Not like we have a good track record of this though.
First it was the "terrorists" that were not terrorists, just people in the wrong place at the wrong time. Held for years without trial in Guantanamo and CIA "black sites".
Now it's migrants seeking asylum.
Who will speak when its actual citizens?
Aside-I take small comfort in the fact that Trump is so underwater against Biden and Bernie that even giving a full margin of error he is still expected to lose if either of them are the nominee, negative 7-8% with a 2% MOE. They're the only two. Seriously, why are we even keeping the rest of the circus in? Warren is the only other one who is also positive, but still falls in the MOE and is being hammered now about her ancestry. I love her (platonically), but she's a flawed candidate now.
Biden for the "conservative" Democrats and Bernie for the Progressives. Kill the mics on everyone else, or have them make inter-party caucases under Biden+Bernie to hash out plans for "where the party should go", and get this train on its tracks.
In 2008, the Democrats had 8 candidates. The last time that all 8 debated was September 2007, 12-13 months before the election, although it COULD have been as late as December, but an invitee didn't make a debate.
By January of the election year it was 4. It wasn't 2 until February.
Republicans had 12. There was never a time that that busload ever met all at the same time, mainly because 2 didn't join until Sep 2007. So I guess that from May to June 2007, was the only time that all candidates AT THE TIME debated each other. The field really didn't start to contract until October.
So, ugh, if that is any guide, we have like 2 more months of this 20-ring circus.
Also, holy hell, presidential debates in EARLY MAY? Even late June this cycle seems god-awfully early.
I am REALLY starting to envy the UK, where they're only allowed like 3 months.
Edit-I picked 2008 because I think that it reflects a similar electoral climate and is kind of "before the shit hit the fan". Because 2016 is recent enough I think we should remember the bus-load of Republicans (and the Democrats had 11 candidates too! 5 which made it to debates). 2012 had 10 Republican candidates make it to debates against a very popular incumbent. Whereas now it is against an incumbent, but a deeply unpopular incumbent. Therefore, lots of fringe candidates are coming out to "try their luck" as if there was no incumbent.
Also, in 2016 the RNC didn't really start the culling until Nov 2015. So more support for this being another 2-3 months of candidate overpopulation.
I would be fine with giving politicians only 6 months during which to campaign; set the first day as 1 May and make it so that they cannot even do any fundraising before then.
Trump quoted, not just retweeted but QUOTED in a NEW TWEET, some conservative radio talkhost who declared him the best president for Israel in the history (OF THE WORLD, mind you, got to include that bit), and that he is as loved as the Second Coming of God.
Soooooooo...
I guess the talibangelicals are kosher with that?
Edit-P.S. This is the first time I went to read Trump's actual twits, because this was so out there I wanted to see it for myself.
And I also went to the talkshow host's twits. Something Root. I went to his website via google, then found his twitter page from there. I did not find a tweet of him saying that, but I did find a tweet saying that Israel should build the Third Temple. So, we can safely put him in the "Wants to see the Second Coming of Christ and the End of the World" pile.
Trump quoted, not just retweeted but QUOTED in a NEW TWEET, some conservative radio talkhost who declared him the best president for Israel in the history (OF THE WORLD, mind you, got to include that bit), and that he is as loved as the Second Coming of God.
Soooooooo...
I guess the talibangelicals are kosher with that?
Edit-P.S. This is the first time I went to read Trump's actual twits, because this was so out there I wanted to see it for myself.
And I also went to the talkshow host's twits. Something Root. I went to his website via google, then found his twitter page from there. I did not find a tweet of him saying that, but I did find a tweet saying that Israel should build the Third Temple. So, we can safely put him in the "Wants to see the Second Coming of Christ and the End of the World" pile.
If you go down this rabbit-hole you'll never come out the other end. Conservative media is one thing, but when you get into the dominionist wing of the far-right you are going to find shit you didn't even know it was possible for human beings to believe outside of mental asylums. But if we want to talk about JUST Wayne Allen Root, here is an abbreviated rundown of what he has pushed:
1.) That Barack Obama did not attend Coulmbia University
2.) That Barack Obama is gay
3.) That the person who killed Heather Heyer in Charlottesville was actually an agent sent in by George Soros.
4.) That a Muslim was responsible for the Las Vegas concert shooting
5.) Pushed the Seth Rich was murdered by the Clinton campaign narrative (though he was hardly alone in this one, that Hillary had him killed is dogma on the American right, nevermind the fact that the Mueller report obliterated this to smithereens and PROVED Assange made the entire thing up on purpose).
6.) Claimed the Mueller investigation was partially a result of Mueller being envious of the size of Trump's penis.
Now then, people are certainly free to believe this stuff, and even shout it from their conservative media perches. But when the President of the United States is actively endorsing people that make Alex Jones look rational, you can see why we're where we are.
"I don't know know anyone, who would be comfortable with someone who behaves this way having his finger on the button. I mean, we're liable to wake up one morning and Donald, if he were President, would have NUKED DENMARK."
Yeah he's not going to reschedule. He's afraid of situations he can't control and women with power. He only hides out in his safe spaces (eg fox news).
This can't be real-life. Trump now flat-out admits he cancelled the trip to Denmark because the PM called the idea of buying Greenland "absurd". His reasoning?? He says you don't get to talk to the United States like that on his watch. First of all, she wasn't saying it to the US, she was saying to YOU. And secondly, if anything, she was too kind. The only proper response to this insanity would have been saying something like "Greenland isn't for sale you raving fucking lunatic". As a way to compensate for this rejection, he only spent the morning essentially declaring himself the King of the Jews and calling himself "The Chosen One". Hey Evangelicals, the First Commandement called. He'd like to have a word with you about idolatry. The most insufferable thing about those who most loudly lay claim to this religion is how little they actually know about it.
I'm obviously concerned that Bolsonaro doesn't believe in climate change and is therefore prepared to act in ways that increase that problem. I also though think its a major problem that he's prepared to lie about the evidence of what's happening. (..).
Bolsonaro said in one of his debates that climate change is real but the question is how much is caused by the humans and how much by the nature. Cut taxes from electric cars would be amazing to reduce pollution, doesn't matter if climate changes are real or not, but since the government wanna people to be dependent upon state owned oil companies, it will not happens.
About Greenland, anyone believes in an risk of war over it?
Frankly I am distressed by how much brown there is in Brazil. That green you are touting? It used to go ALL THE WAY EAST TO THE COAST. Do you see any green in the right side of your picture? No. It is brown.
Northeast never had much forests, but Brazil is far more green than other countries. Near 2/3 of the country is green. See countries who are 80%+ urbanized criticizing Brasil is extremely hypocritical.
Comments
As for the Greenland issue, this was good for a few laughs the day the news came out. It's been half a week now, and the President of the United States is still not only engaged in talking about this nonsense, but is actually cancelling diplomatic meetings because he thinks it's a negotiating tactic to purchase a piece of real estate. It's unfathomably stupid, but shows just how ridiculous things have gotten. Why doesn't he purchase Pluto while he's at it since it's no longer considered a planet. This shit is so DUMB.
While he therefore may not have much to lose, there are potential gains. Trump gets a lot of support from radical groups with anti-semitic tendencies - so making statements that can be seen by such groups as supporting their views helps to solidify that support. At the same time Trump can claim he's supporting Israel, which plays well with more mainstream Republicans, who have become used to the idea that uncritical support for Israel is a good thing.
The risk to the country is that this sort of statement is likely to deepen divisions within US society and stir up anti-semitism, but I don't suppose that would be seen as a problem by Trump.
With his base, sure. But there are alot of eldery Jewish voters in Florida, a state Trump absolutely cannot under any circumstances afford to lose. Holding Ohio and Florida is 100% essential to his reelection. There is no path to 270 without them. Trump is either going to squeak by with an even greater popular vote loss, or get completely wiped out. I don't see a middle ground. 50/50 coin flip.
As for Greenland, it reminds me of something (of all people) the Mooch said the other day. He said it isn't so much that Trump is a raging racist as that he doesn't view human beings as people, he simply sees them as vehicles or obstacles to his own power and gratification. Sometimes when I'm in the mood, I rewatch Sopranos clips on Youtube, and I'm personally struck in hindsight of just how HORRIBLE Tony was as a human being (completely aside from the murdering and racketeering) and how much worse he got over time. Then I read the comment sections and feel even worse, because the majority of the people commenting seemed to have missed the entire point of the show, and instead of seeing him an uncontrollable sociopath, view him as some kind of paragon of masculinity to be emulated.
Ocram's razor is that there's no deeper layer than he's a backwards thinking lying jerk.
No? I remember "Freedom fries" because France had the audacity to say no to the Iraq invasion.
Why the hell are Republicans so hidebound about sticking to Israel? "But they're the only non-Muslims in the Middle East" used to sound logical to me, but lately it seems to go a bit beyond that.
Many Republicans are also evangelicals and evangelicals keep a keen eye on Israel--if Israel can completely recapture control of its "biblical" lands and the Temple of Solomon gets rebuilt then those events will signal the beginning of the Second Coming. No, I am not kidding. They differ only as to whether they think the Rapture will happen just before the Tribulation, during it, or just as it ends. In any event, rebuilding the Temple would necessitate the demolition of the Al Aqsa and I doubt anyone who isn't an extremist wants to kick that hornet's nest.
On a completely unrelated note, this is page 343 and 343 = 7^3 or 7*7*7.
Do I win a prize?
Yeah, I was going to mention that, but decided not to because it was a bit accusatory.
For other, RATIONAL people, what does it imply about certain people that they want to see THE END OF THE WORLD?
Actually both 3 and 7 are supposed to be holy numbers.
The EU is committed to supporting Ireland to uphold its own commitments under the Good Friday Agreement and there seems no prospect that will change (the EU negotiating strategy has always emphasized the need to maintain a common cause among its members and that makes pragmatic sense, quite apart from the moral aspect of stitching up Ireland). It's hard to believe Johnson really believes the EU will give ground here, so the logical alternative is that he's presenting them with an unacceptable solution in order to try and blame them when a no deal happens. The government's real view about the prospects for a deal is perhaps clearer in the decision just taken not to attend general EU meetings after the end of next week - effectively accepting that there will not be a deal with a transitional period.
It's still possible that Parliament will prevent a no deal Brexit, but even though there's a clear majority wishing to do that, the mechanics required are not straight-forward. Partly that reflects that not all Conservatives that are against no deal would be willing to bring down the government. It also reflects logistical difficulties in non-government MPs bringing forward legislation. There are also possibilities that the government will try and prevent Parliament sitting at all, or that Johnson would refuse to resign if there was a no-confidence vote and try and call an election instead (after Brexit). That's probably illegal, but the relevant law is relatively new and not yet tested, so preventing such an action could be difficult.
Another decision of significance is the announcement this week that free movement for EU nationals will no longer apply from the date of Brexit. May's government had previously promised there would be a transitional period up to the end of 2020 in which the several million EU nationals in the UK would continue to have the right to remain. They still will theoretically have those rights, but will need to have applied for settled status by 31 October (assuming that's the Brexit date). A large proportion of EU nationals have not yet applied (unsurprising given they were promised several times they would have a grace period after Brexit to do that), so in the short time remaining there is plenty of scope for chaos and confusion. It seems highly likely that there will be lots of EU nationals who leave the UK on holiday, only to find they can't get back in - either because they've not applied for settled status or because their applications have been lost or misfiled.
If the UK does leave on 31st October without a deal, I wonder if it will be days or only hours after that before a government spokesman expresses their shock and dismay that the EU are insisting that the contents of what would have been the withdrawal deal must be accepted prior to any discussions of a potential trade deal ...
So - if the UK goes with a hard Brexit, that will mean (among other things) that there is a hard border between Ireland and North Ireland, right?
Which would invalidate (or perhaps, just renege upon) part of the Good Friday Agreement, right? If that were to happen... what happens next? Do you think Ireland and the UK would negotiate a new treaty? Would they have to get an agreement with the EU (I guess it wouldnt make sense. Since an open border with Ireland essentially means the whole EU due to the rights given to EU member states).
Is there a worst case scenario where something like The Troubles start spooling up again?
Is there a hard Brexit (or even a revised soft brexit without the backstop) plan in place for what happens with Ireland?
I don't know, why don't you read 50 pages or so on the matter and get back to us instead of asking rhetorical questions?
It depends what you mean by a hard border. There would definitely have to be some form of checks on the movement of goods, but the UK government would like those to be done away from the border using approaches like communications technology and 'trusted trader' schemes to do this. That may be possible and the EU has not ruled that out. The backstop was, genuinely, a backstop against the failure of these types of arrangements (which are not currently in place anywhere in the world) rather than an intended outcome.
However, there is certainly a risk there will be a need for more traditional border controls and the current failure to produce a plan that will definitely avoid that is arguably inconsistent with the commitment under the Good Friday Agreement to avoid any hard border.
I don't have much feel for Irish politics, but my expectation is that there will be a period where everyone blames everyone else for problems. As you say the EU will certainly be unhappy with the potential for an unregulated backdoor into the single market. The Irish will be unhappy with anything that creates a distinction between northern and southern Ireland. The British will be unhappy that we've left the EU, but are still being told to comply with EU regulations. All that is likely to have a real impact on trade as well as an impact on political views.
I think following that period of disruption a likely outcome will be to activate another aspect of the Good Friday Agreement. That provides that the UK and Irish governments are required (have to do it, not just given discretion to do it) to hold a referendum on a united Ireland as soon as it appears there are majorities for that in both Northern Ireland and Ireland. I think it's extremely likely that it will become apparent post-Brexit that there are such majorities.
If a referendum were not then held the prospects for increased paramilitary activity from the IRA side would increase. However, the Troubles were never just about the IRA vs the British - a very large part was the IRA fighting against protestant / unionist paramilitaries. Those latter groups have been inactive for a while, but they are not dead and a referendum result in favor of a united Ireland could very easily spark violence from them.
The reason why the Good Friday Agreement has been pretty successful is that it's a fudge - it allows both sides to feel that they've got what they want. People in Northern Ireland are free to regard themselves as either British or Irish (or both). Politicians making such a fuss about the proposed backstop has just served to highlight that the constitutional issues smoothed over by the Good Friday Agreement are still contentious and I think the Troubles are still too recent in memory for a final resolution to be possible on these issues in the near future. I'm not therefore too optimistic about everything in Ireland sorting itself out smoothly over the next few years.
In the future, bear in mind that while ideas, trends, and public figures are subject to criticism, your fellow forumites are not.
-Site staff
What they conveniently leave out of their "support" of the Jews of Israel is that in the end, a victorious Jesus Christ will descend and demand they all convert to Christianity or be destroyed like everyone else. In other words, invalidating their entire religion. In the end, they are forced to submit or die like everyone else. They are just last on the list of the cannon fodder in the Revelations-inspired fever dream of the radical relgious right. Mind you, alot of this stuff isn't even IN the Bible. It's fan-fiction mainly pushed by influential mega-pastors and televangelists that millions of people subscribe to the idea of. I guarantee you more of these people get their ideas from the "Left Behind" series than the Bible itself.
A few days ago, land owners in the Amazon region promoted a "fire day" (Brazilian news source article in portuguese) where they started several fires in the area to accelerate the deforestation process and to "show service" to president Boslonaro.
https://www1.folha.uol.com.br/ambiente/2019/08/em-dia-do-fogo-sul-do-pa-registra-disparo-no-numero-de-queimadas.shtml
So now the Amazon in Brazil, has been on fire for several days.
Conservationists have blamed Jair Bolsonaro for the Amazon's plight, saying he has encouraged loggers and farmers to clear the land, and scientists say the rainforest has suffered losses at an accelerated rate since he took office in January.
These fires set by loggers eager to show Bolsanro that they are "ready to work" can be seen from space.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-49415973
Smoke from the burning Amazon Rainforest plunged Brazil's largest city into darkness in the middle of the day. I gotta imagine that their air is now or will soon be filled with ash particles making the very air Brazilians are breathing totally toxic. Greedy farmers are destroying the Earth. To me, this is the type of thing, destroying the planet we all live on that should result in action: regime change, sanctions. These actions are not just affecting Brazil.
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/skbaer/sao-paulo-darkness-amazon-fires
And using the link that you posted “The particulate matter, coming from the smoke produced by these large wildfires that are happening in Bolivia, coupled with the cold, humid air that is off the coast of São Paulo, caused the darkness,” Franco Vilela, a meteorologist at Inmet, told Globo.
Why the media isn't showing reports about Bolivian wildfires?
The climate in South America isn't just an big forest tropical mass. On Chile for eg you can see dry deserts in north and 20m tall glaciers in south... Snowed in my city some years ago (video in spoilers), São Paulo is almost 4 000 km away from Manaus...
Because science. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadley_cell
The TL;DR of it is that warm air rises at the equator because it is the hottest until it hits a point it can't rise any more but can't sink because of more warm air rising below it. Then the earth's rotation pulls the hot air towards the pole. This happens in the stratosphere.
That happens invisibly. Except for VERY severe thunderstorms, clouds normally don't get high enough to get into the stratosphere, they nucleate because it gets too cold to have water as a gas and precipitate out as rainfall. So you would not normally SEE this happening.
Ash/dust from plinian+ volcanic eruptions and very large fires and nuclear explosions CAN get enough lift to get into the stratosphere, because it doesn't nucleate and precipitate out like water does. Basically the ash is acting like food coloring in water, allowing you to see the true flow of the air. As an aside, this also happens to be why if you look at old videos of nuclear waepon tests, you can sometimes see narrow columns of smoke they started in order to see what happens to the air flow in the tests.
Edit-Also, because air is a fluid, it flows to replace where it is displaced. At/near the surface, the tradewinds move southeast to northwest down there in Brazil. Therefore, there must be some mechanism for the air to get from the northwest to the southeast. Hence the "cell".
Frankly I am distressed by how much brown there is in Brazil. That green you are touting? It used to go ALL THE WAY EAST TO THE COAST. Do you see any green in the right side of your picture? No. It is brown.
The BBC have run several stories prior to the one that @smeagolheart linked above. Those refer to the argument between the head of the Brazilian space agency and Bolsonaro. The agency is responsible for the satellite system set up in 2004 to monitor deforestation in the Amazon. That data shows that deforestation has increased rapidly since Bolsonaro took office and is now running at about twice the previous highest recorded level. Bolsonaro's response to the agency publishing this information was to criticize and then sack the head of the agency. Plans are currently being drawn up to put in place a new monitoring system that will report lower levels of deforestation (presumably with the intention of satisfying the requirements Brazil agreed to under the Paris climate accord) - but that won't change the data being collected by satellites used by other countries ...
Yeah, that's blatantly unconstitutional, Sixth Amendment.
Not like we have a good track record of this though.
First it was the "terrorists" that were not terrorists, just people in the wrong place at the wrong time. Held for years without trial in Guantanamo and CIA "black sites".
Now it's migrants seeking asylum.
Who will speak when its actual citizens?
Aside-I take small comfort in the fact that Trump is so underwater against Biden and Bernie that even giving a full margin of error he is still expected to lose if either of them are the nominee, negative 7-8% with a 2% MOE. They're the only two. Seriously, why are we even keeping the rest of the circus in? Warren is the only other one who is also positive, but still falls in the MOE and is being hammered now about her ancestry. I love her (platonically), but she's a flawed candidate now.
Biden for the "conservative" Democrats and Bernie for the Progressives. Kill the mics on everyone else, or have them make inter-party caucases under Biden+Bernie to hash out plans for "where the party should go", and get this train on its tracks.
In 2008, the Democrats had 8 candidates. The last time that all 8 debated was September 2007, 12-13 months before the election, although it COULD have been as late as December, but an invitee didn't make a debate.
By January of the election year it was 4. It wasn't 2 until February.
Republicans had 12. There was never a time that that busload ever met all at the same time, mainly because 2 didn't join until Sep 2007. So I guess that from May to June 2007, was the only time that all candidates AT THE TIME debated each other. The field really didn't start to contract until October.
So, ugh, if that is any guide, we have like 2 more months of this 20-ring circus.
Also, holy hell, presidential debates in EARLY MAY? Even late June this cycle seems god-awfully early.
I am REALLY starting to envy the UK, where they're only allowed like 3 months.
Edit-I picked 2008 because I think that it reflects a similar electoral climate and is kind of "before the shit hit the fan". Because 2016 is recent enough I think we should remember the bus-load of Republicans (and the Democrats had 11 candidates too! 5 which made it to debates). 2012 had 10 Republican candidates make it to debates against a very popular incumbent. Whereas now it is against an incumbent, but a deeply unpopular incumbent. Therefore, lots of fringe candidates are coming out to "try their luck" as if there was no incumbent.
Also, in 2016 the RNC didn't really start the culling until Nov 2015. So more support for this being another 2-3 months of candidate overpopulation.
Sooooooo...
Trump quoted, not just retweeted but QUOTED in a NEW TWEET, some conservative radio talkhost who declared him the best president for Israel in the history (OF THE WORLD, mind you, got to include that bit), and that he is as loved as the Second Coming of God.
Soooooooo...
I guess the talibangelicals are kosher with that?
Edit-P.S. This is the first time I went to read Trump's actual twits, because this was so out there I wanted to see it for myself.
And I also went to the talkshow host's twits. Something Root. I went to his website via google, then found his twitter page from there. I did not find a tweet of him saying that, but I did find a tweet saying that Israel should build the Third Temple. So, we can safely put him in the "Wants to see the Second Coming of Christ and the End of the World" pile.
If you go down this rabbit-hole you'll never come out the other end. Conservative media is one thing, but when you get into the dominionist wing of the far-right you are going to find shit you didn't even know it was possible for human beings to believe outside of mental asylums. But if we want to talk about JUST Wayne Allen Root, here is an abbreviated rundown of what he has pushed:
1.) That Barack Obama did not attend Coulmbia University
2.) That Barack Obama is gay
3.) That the person who killed Heather Heyer in Charlottesville was actually an agent sent in by George Soros.
4.) That a Muslim was responsible for the Las Vegas concert shooting
5.) Pushed the Seth Rich was murdered by the Clinton campaign narrative (though he was hardly alone in this one, that Hillary had him killed is dogma on the American right, nevermind the fact that the Mueller report obliterated this to smithereens and PROVED Assange made the entire thing up on purpose).
6.) Claimed the Mueller investigation was partially a result of Mueller being envious of the size of Trump's penis.
Now then, people are certainly free to believe this stuff, and even shout it from their conservative media perches. But when the President of the United States is actively endorsing people that make Alex Jones look rational, you can see why we're where we are.
"I don't know know anyone, who would be comfortable with someone who behaves this way having his finger on the button. I mean, we're liable to wake up one morning and Donald, if he were President, would have NUKED DENMARK."
skip to 39 seconds in
relevant:
In Denmark, Bewilderment and Anger Over Trump’s Canceled Visit
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/21/world/europe/greenland-denmark-trump.html
Trump claims:
Yeah he's not going to reschedule. He's afraid of situations he can't control and women with power. He only hides out in his safe spaces (eg fox news).
Ouch lol
Bolsonaro said in one of his debates that climate change is real but the question is how much is caused by the humans and how much by the nature. Cut taxes from electric cars would be amazing to reduce pollution, doesn't matter if climate changes are real or not, but since the government wanna people to be dependent upon state owned oil companies, it will not happens.
About Greenland, anyone believes in an risk of war over it?
Northeast never had much forests, but Brazil is far more green than other countries. Near 2/3 of the country is green. See countries who are 80%+ urbanized criticizing Brasil is extremely hypocritical.