I have been busy with real life tasks
so haven't had the opportunity to consider a new post, until now.
But, oh my, does there seem to be a plethora of topics to discuss.
We have the multiple police shootings in the United States, which led
to protests, and more violence. We have the aftermath of the Brexit
vote starting to ripple through economic activity and the political
spectrum. We have had a truck attack in France, resulting in mass
casualties. We have had a coup attempt in Turkey. I
simply could not pick. But as I considered my topic I realized that
some of those events do actually have something in common. Except,
perhaps, for the terror attack in France all of the other events seem
to be symptoms of divisions within various countries. I qualify the
terror attack with that “perhaps” because it too seems in a way
to be a symptom of divisions between peoples. The division in that
case being between moderates and extremists.
People
are not all alike, they have different beliefs, different dreams,
different problems. So how do we deal with the differences? I think
if a country has a wise government it listens to the people. While
we can't please all of the people all of the time it is expected that
all of the people should be given the respect and due process that is
necessary for a country to continue to function successfully. So I
have listened to a couple videos that I wanted to share with you.
The
first is a Sky News Special on the aftermath of the Brexit vote.
(Yes, you know who, I wrote “the” before Brexit. Lol!). I
thought it a decently balanced report with voices from both sides of
the issue weighing in. It runs about 26 minutes.
The
next is a Town Hall discussion that President Obama engaged in
recently regarding race relations here in the States. It too was a
nicely balanced event allowing all voices to be heard. It's about an
hour long, but there are some very interesting viewpoints expressed
that are worth hearing.
We
will always struggle with differences. It is how we respond to those
differences, and resolve the problems that arise, that will
differentiate a peaceful, prosperous country from one that slides
into chaos and anarchy, or a dictatorship.
241 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 241 of 241"Nate Silver got paraded around the UK applying that ‘real science’ to
the 2015 general election."
His American models, which took some years to develop, have been remarkably accurate. I am not surprised that his first attempt to model a British election was less so. Nor am I surprised that you attempt to compare apples with oranges. (You may or may not know better; doesn't really matter; result is the same.)
"I am not surprised that his first attempt to model a British election
was less so."
First two attempts you tell us. Still, apples to oranges.
Hey, I got an idea… Why don't you explain some of that supposed ‘science’ you supposedly got that tells you Trump is gonna win. Should give everybody, even Marcus, a good laugh, both today and when I remind you of it come November.
"Bernie fans may not switch wholesale to Trump, but they won't be
coming out to vote for Hillary."
According to tonight's NBC Nightly News, recent polling suggests that Hillary's already got 90%+ of Bernie's voters wrapped up. The Bernie delegates, who paid their own way to the convention even after Bernie acknowledged defeat, are mostly a hard-core of the remaining 10%. They are not exactly a representative sample of the average Bernie voter in the districts back home.
Explain science to you? Been tryin' that for more'n five years. Have y'all forgotten how I had to give up when it transpired y'all couldn't grasp kiddie logic let alone science? I'd even give it another shot if y'all warn't such an ungrateful cur. But .... nah, don't think so!
Watched a bit more of Bernie at the convention...
Bernie: "Trump is a BULLY and a DEMAGOGUE!"
Crowd: "So is SHE".
LOL.
Listening to Cory Booker at the DNC. Loved it. :))))
"…nah, don't think so!"
Didn't think so, but thought I'd issue the invite.
No doubt some months down the line you'll remember how you gave us a detailed explanation which you can't be bothered with repeating when that time comes. Petes' science in full flower.
If Michelle Obama can repeat that performance at will, then Hillary needs to get her out on the campaign trail.
All in all, Hillary had a good night. Petes, not so much. Trump neither.
Lee: "According to tonight's NBC Nightly News, recent polling suggests that Hillary's already got 90%+ of Bernie's voters wrapped up."
But the question will be what level of turnout we'll see from that group. That they answer they would vote for Hillary is not necessarily the same as they will vote for Hillary. A portion might just stay home.
I think the turnout is sure to be affected by the enthusiasm for the candidate. Obama could generate that enthusiasm, Hillary seems way less able to do so.
"I think the turnout is sure to be affected by the enthusiasm for the
candidate."
There is that; although, I suspect enthusiasm for Hillary Clinton might be provided by the spectre of President Donald Trump. Works that way with me certainly.
[Chump]: "I am not surprised that his first attempt to model a British election was less so."
[Chump, suddenly rememberin' how to count to TWO]: "First two attempts you tell us. Still, apples to oranges."
LOL.
[Chump]: "All in all, Hillary had a good night. Petes, not so much. Trump neither."
Do try to keep yer tenuous grip on reality there chump. ;-)
I see Hillary is benefittin' from media compliancy -- judgin' by CNN's priorities.
[Chump]: "Trump lives in a dark and angry America. That's his normal habitat."
[Lynnette]: "Beware the dark thoughts of an authoritarian strongman"
How very curious. It ain't just you two. I've been starting to notice a meme:
His Tone Dark, Donald Trump Takes G.O.P. Mantle - New York Times
Donald Trump Takes America on a Journey to the Dark Side - NBC
In acceptance speech, Trump’s America is a dark and desperate place - Washington Post
Trump's emotional and dark message: How it will play out - CNBC
Will Donald Trump's dark view of America resonate with voters? - Christian Science Monitor
'The party I worked for died tonight': Republicans decry Trump's dark vision - Guardian
Donald Trump’s Dark And Scary Night - Huffington Post
Scott Adams has a theory:
Clinton Uses Dark Magic
Pete:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Je743GTrmWs
NYT-article about Iraq after Mosul is retaken:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/26/world/middleeast/isis-iraq-insurgency.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0
"American officials warn that a military victory in the last urban stronghold of Mosul, which they hope will be achieved by the end of the year, will not be sufficient to stave off a lethal insurgency.
“To defeat an insurgency, Iraq would need to move forward on its political and economic reform agenda,” Lt. Gen. Sean B. MacFarland, the top American commander in Iraq, said in an email."
Priest got his throat slit in a hostage/terror attack inside a Church in France just now. These attacks are becoming ever more frequent. As any sane person unhandicapped by ideological blinkers could have foreseen.
Poor Petes, all that Petes science wasted on Trump and Trump's still toast.
And, it seems Elizabeth Warren has gotten under his skin again.
[Marcus]: "Priest got his throat slit in a hostage/terror attack inside a Church in France just now. These attacks are becoming ever more frequent. As any sane person unhandicapped by ideological blinkers could have foreseen."
My baby sister's studying music this week in a church less than fifty miles south of that one. She reckoned the threat of terror in such an out of the way place was minimal :-/
Some reports saying that the priest was beheaded. And one of the attackers was already known to police, in fact wearing an electronic tag because of getting picked up on the way to Syria. Hollande and his PM already got booed at a public event over Nice, this one is going to look pretty shoddy in spite of armed police responding quickly to the event.
[Chumpy]: "And, it seems Elizabeth Warren has gotten under his skin again."
A little hint for ya Chumpy: when nobody knows what yore wittering about, and ya got to hyperlink to the thing that's supposed to have gotten under my skin, y'all sound a bit desperate and pathetic.
Same as ya do when you claim Hillary had a great night ... after the DNC chairwoman had to resign over pro-Hillary sleaze, and anti-Hillary delegates booed her.
And by the way it's yore country that's puttin' forward these lunatic candidates. I ain't got no horse in the race. So there's little point in projectin' yer sensitivities.
"…the thing that's supposed to have gotten under my skin…"
She's gotten under Trump's skin again. (Fewer things are about you than you think.)
"I ain't got no horse in the race."
I might have believed that until I saw the evident glee you experienced in imagining every small glitch into a massive problem for Hillary. (Example: Obama didn't want to do the dirty work so he left Debbie Wasserman-Shultz for Hillary to deal with--when li'l Debbie proved to be a public embarrassment Hillary had her gone in about a day--problem handled. You want it to be a big deal; it's not. Example: The evidence linking the Wikileaks documents back to Russian state actors is pretty solid. You want it to be imaginary; it's not. You've picked a horse to cheer for.)
And then, of course, there's the Petes' secret science favoring Trump to win.
And, it seems Elizabeth Warren has gotten under his skin again.
Somehow I don't think that's difficult to do.
Scott Adams has a theory:
I noticed the comments were disabled on that blog. I can imagine why! lol!
How very curious. It ain't just you two. I've been starting to notice a meme:
Probably because it is what it is. No conspiracy here. ;)
Now, what were we supposed to say about those Russians?
My baby sister's studying music this week in a church less than fifty miles south of that one. She reckoned the threat of terror in such an out of the way place was minimal :-/
I'm glad to hear your sister picked the right church. But you can find crazies anywhere. It sounds like that guy was reading the news from Bangladesh.
If Michelle Obama can repeat that performance at will, then Hillary needs to get her out on the campaign trail.
She did very well. She also made a good point. Our children need good role models, and Trump isn't it. I hope people take notice.
[Chump]: "I might have believed that..."
Let's face it, yore record on here of "what you believe" ain't exactly a litany of common sense.
[Chump]: "Debbie proved to be a public embarrassment Hillary had her gone in about a day--problem handled."
LOL. Is that's why Hillary put out a statement announcing she was making DWS an honorary chair of her campaign and looked forward to helping her reelection campaign? You may need to do some very furious Googlin' to find out how Hillary's gesture is merely "loyalty and graciousness and peacemaking efforts". Yeah, you'd probably believe that sort of crap. The DNC chairwoman sets out to undermine not only the Democrats but democracy itself, and Hillary has effectively just parked her for a few days to give time for the dust to settle.
[Chump]: "The evidence linking the Wikileaks documents back to Russian state actors is pretty solid. You want it to be imaginary; it's not. You've picked a horse to cheer for."
When that red mist in front of yer eyes dissipates y'all may wanna go back and read what I wrote. I made no comment one way or another on the veracity of the Russian link. My comment was on Dems fumblin' around for a diversion.
And calm down sonny. Even if I picked a horse to cheer for dudn't mean I've backed it to win.
"My comment was on Dems fumblin' around for a diversion."
They didn't exactly fumble around for it; it was right there in front of them.
"Even if I picked a horse to cheer for dudn't mean I've backed it to
win."
But, you have backed him to win. Shall I go get the quotes from where you explicitly say you've backed him to win?
(And, just for the record, it has not gone unnoticed that you and The Donald share the habit of trying to demean your opposition through the use of unflattering nicknames. It's merely your shared natural affinity for authoritarian arguments and personalities expressing itself. Your politics are nominally different from his, but his autocratic tendencies appear to draw you in anyway.)
And, so…. Hillary threw Debbie a bone; not surprising, Debbie's getting a primary challenge from a die-hard Sanders supporter. Hillary would rather have a supporter in Congress than a have a Sanders rebel in the Democratic ranks.
Is Trump a Russian Stooge?--Foreign Policy Magazine
Why Putin Hates Hillary -- Politico
Ain't exactly a "red mist" in my eyes. It's a fairly obvious question to be asking. The Democrats didn't have to stumble around lookin’ for it--it's right there in front of them.
Y'all really are seven shades of dumb. It wouldn'a mattered if Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin had come and delivered those leaked emails by hand. The Dems were lookin' for something -- anything -- to divert attention from the fact that one of their own had resorted to the most underhand tactics in their own primary process. Geddit? It ain't complicated (well, for most people anyways).
You seem to not quite understand the process of political parties. The Democratic Party has institutional interests. (That's why they have Superdelegates, damn near all of whom went for Hillary.) Those institutional interests were not served by nominating an avowed Socialist who did not even claim to be a Democrat. It wasn't a ‘fair fight’ because it wasn't supposed to be a ‘fair fight’. Of course the system's rigged--that's why they have an institutional party in the first place--to rig the system.
And, I don't know that they resorted to ‘underhanded tactics’; one guy did discuss such tactics in an e-mail that I know of, but I don't know that they ever followed through on that. What they did have was an institutional interest in seeing that Hillary won and Sanders did not. And then they got some starry-eyed Sanders supporters who don't seem to understand that (although Sanders does), and they're tryin’ to keep those starry-eyed guys placated enough to still vote for Hillary. That's all there is here.
So why did DSW have to resign, chump?
(Rhetorical question, don't bother answerin', wouldn't git any sense out of ya anyway).
Bunch of people trying to "humanize" Hillary, make her seem more likable. Doesn't seem to be all that thrilling. Maybe Bill will make it work, but it don't seem to be working all that well so far tonight.
It was a big ask, but I thought Bill did a fairly good job with a difficult subject. Probably not the best speech of his life, but it was a difficult subject.
"So why did DSW have to resign, chump?"
Have you not been paying attention? Or does reality just not sink in with you? Hillary made her resign to placate ‘some starry-eyed Sanders supporters who don't seem to understand’, and whose votes Hillary's gonna want to wrap up for the contest against Trump.
Post a Comment