Politics 20/20 now with extra hindsight!

[Gorth]

Old thread...

https://forums.obsidian.net/topic/119010-politics-2020/

So, was it an Aryan invasion or migration???

 

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

1 hour ago, Gorth said:

So, was it an Aryan invasion or migration???

Depends on your point of view.

[Malcador]

Depends on your skin colour.

[BruceVC]

3 hours ago, Gorth said:

Old thread...

https://forums.obsidian.net/topic/119010-politics-2020/

So, was it an Aryan invasion or migration???

 

It was a migration, there are clear differences between the words " invasion "  and " migration" 

But what a strange way to describe the arrival of white people in the USA when it comes to the actual  events of history ...no wonder there is so much misinformation from certain elements within groups like BLM where people literally dont know one historical statue from another and think the history of a country like the USA is founded only on negative developments like slavery and oppression 

 

[Malcador]

28 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

But what a strange way to describe the arrival of white people in the USA

It's not what they're referring to, I believe. 

This also comes to mind

 

 

[BruceVC]

1 minute ago, Malcador said:

It's not what they're referring to, I believe. 

This also comes to mind

 

 

Okay good, I am glad I am misunderstanding what people are saying

What part of history are they referring to when they say " So, was it an Aryan invasion or migration " ? 

[Gorth]

1 hour ago, BruceVC said:

It was a migration, there are clear differences between the words " invasion "  and " migration"

The people of the Indus-Valley civilization may have a different opinion

 

Since the Aryans moved through there (not particularly peacefully) and settled in what is modern day Iran (the Iranians being the descendants of the ancient Aryans)

 

Edit: I've been told Iranians gets annoyed when ignorant people call them "Arabs" (which they aren't). Is this still a thing or are people better educated today than they were 30 years ago???

[Gromnir]

1 hour ago, BruceVC said:

Okay good, I am glad I am misunderstanding what people are saying

What part of history are they referring to when they say " So, was it an Aryan invasion or migration " ? 

has been a long time since we had any exposure to this, so am hopeful somebody more knowledgeable corrects what we assume will be multiple errors.

aryan migration/invasion is kinda an explanation for the linguistic commonalities 'tween european, middle-eastern and asian languages, and we are talking 'bout hypothesized events more than 1200 bc. 

is more o' a semantics issue  than anything. if you migrate into places where folks already is having established cultures, then some modern and socially conscious persons, absent any evidence, will wanna call it an invasion. is not a complete unreasonable assumption, but again, is no evidence the migrations o' persons from europe to asia were "invasions." there may even have been bloody conflicts 'tween the foreigners and the indigenous peoples, but labeling such insular conflicts as an invasion is requiring a bit o' a leap 'tween what is known (extreme little) and what some hypothesize.

HA! Good Fun!

ps am a bit amused by the recognition that ordinary 6th graders in CA should be able to provide a far better explanation than am personal able to offer bruce.

Edited October 27, 2020 by Gromnir

[BruceVC]

24 minutes ago, Gorth said:

The people of the Indus-Valley civilization may have a different opinion

 

Since the Aryans moved through there (not particularly peacefully) and settled in what is modern day Iran (the Iranians being the descendants of the ancient Aryans)

 

Edit: I've been told Iranians gets annoyed when ignorant people call them "Arabs" (which they aren't). Is this still a thing or are people better educated today than they were 30 years ago???

Yes the Iranians are descendants of the Persians and not Arabs and understandably dont like to be called Arab because they not. Its a great country and despite the real problems the current hardliners present many Iranians are moderates and just want a normal relationship with the global community. This is why the current political and regional issues in the ME  exacerbated by " Shia fundamentalism " is so tragic and unnecessary 

SA has some investments in Iran  including one of  our major cell phone providers. A company called MTN and I did a brief 2 week project there...also Iran has some really  beautiful women like most ME countries I have worked in 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MTN_Irancell

[Gromnir]

Times Square Billboards With Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner Stir Skirmish

...

y'know the lincoln project has gotta be slack-jawed that javanka is providing them with so much free publicity and extra exposure. the trump couple turns a times square billboard into a national and even international story?

as government officials and public figures they have a worse chance o' succeeding in a defamation case 'gainst lincoln project than we do o' winning the 2021 miss america contest-- am thinking we would score ok in the interview portion but now that the swimsuit portion has been removed, we got no shot at victory. 

more amusing is the following: 

"The couple might be greeted warmly in some parts of the city, said Joe Borelli, a councilman from Staten Island — which voted for the president in 2016. Mr. Borelli said he has no insight into “polite society” but noted that Ms. Trump and Mr. Kushner “are always welcome on Staten Island.”"

folks unfamiliar with ny may not get the joke. an example o' a staten island high society event would be the local knights of columbus holding a barbecue/monte carlo night to raise money for a neighborhood catholic church, the society of st. vincent de paul, or maybe even a new scoreboard for the baseball field/complex where little league games is held. the idea o' jared and ivanka voluntarily spending time in staten island 'cause is the only place in ny where they is still welcomed is funny and absurd.

if trump loses in november, am almost gonna miss 'em. almost.

HA! Good Fun!

Edited October 27, 2020 by Gromnir
added image for visual learners

[HoonDing]

"SA has some investments in Iran  including one of  our major cell phone providers. A company called MTN and I did a brief 2 week project there...also Iran has some really  beautiful women like most ME countries I have worked in "

 

Adultery and sex outside marriage are both punishable by death in Persia

I hope you were able to control yourself during your visit

[BruceVC]

2 hours ago, Gromnir said:

 

...

y

if trump loses in november, am almost gonna miss 'em. almost.

HA! Good Fun!

I have mentioned this before but if Trump loses there are definitely things in his personality and how he sometimes frames things that I am going to miss. He really is  funny at times 

For example, his latest outburst on CBS where he attacked CBS and the media in general for being unfair towards him around commentary, he gave an example in a true  "Trumpism " way that  only he does

" you guys in the media always give Biden a pass. For example if Biden is eating an ice-cream and the media interviews him you ask questions like ....what flavor is the ice-cream ? " 

So this was Trumps analogy for the media not interrogating Biden properly compared to the questions he gets asked 

Oh and how upset he became with the massive BLM sign on the walkway outside his Trump tower in NY 

Edited October 27, 2020 by BruceVC

[Malcador]

8 hours ago, Gorth said:

Edit: I've been told Iranians gets annoyed when ignorant people call them "Arabs" (which they aren't). Is this still a thing or are people better educated today than they were 30 years ago???

They still do, and people still do it.  You have too much faith in people :P

[Gromnir]

Judge rejects Justice Dept. bid to short circuit defamation case brought by woman who accused Trump of rape

"In a 59-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan wrote that Trump did not qualify as a federal “employee” under federal law, nor was he acting “within the scope of his employment” when he denied during interviews in 2019 that he had raped journalist E. Jean Carroll more than two decades ago in a New York City department store."

ruling is no surprise. however, am gonna observe how acb's most notorious fed case ruling had her decide that the government could not be sued 'cause a guard's repeated rape o' a female prisoner fell outside the guard's scope o' employment. trump just added a justice to the Court who has already shown her hand as to how she will vote if this case gets SCOTUS review.

ps/follow up

last observation 'bout the aryan invasion stuff which we admitted know virtual nothing and what knowledge we do have is decades old and came as maybe five minutes during an undergrad humanities course somewhere 'tween covering gilgamesh and the iliad.  am not claiming expertise and am barely aware o' the theory.

evidence o' invasion is a result o' common sense, genetics and aforementioned language commonalities. archeological evidence o' aryan invasion has been kinda undermined. is no historical record neither. limit to same evidence would make donald trump and stephen miller claims 'o an invasion o' the US southern border by peoples from central and south america over recent decades equal plausible. afterall, recent decades has seen considerable influx o' peoples from south and central america into existing populations particular in the south and western US resulting in observable genetic and language changes.

am not gonna be a hypocrite... which brings us back to why am confident acb finds 'gainst trump in a a imagined future SCOTUS case addressing the defamation claims o' ms. e. jean carroll. 

HA! Good Fun!

[Darkpriest]

One thing that I hope ppl in US will not have to face with the new balance of power in the SCOTUS is similar shenanigans to what so called Constitution's Tribunal did in Poland recently (after it got politicians of the ruling party nominated as majority of judges throughout last 5yrs)

They've decided to take a 27yrs old act, which was a healthy compromise on abortions, and ruled it as unconstitutional, and defend the decision, that it blocks eugenic driven acts of abortion. In fact it (now) was covering cases, where the future mothers could have decided for abortion, if the fetus had near certain level of risk for severe or lethal disability. This also covered cases in which the conditon of the unborn child could also threathen the health and life of the mother. 

This was done in such a way, to avoid a debate in the parliment and in the senate, which is shady. One can agree or disagree on morality issues, and when the fetus gets human rights of an individual and where is a boundry of mother's freedom and unborn individual's freedom, but things should not be done this way. 

 

Personally, I'm of opinion that abortion should not be a form of anticonception, however if the child would be disabled and there is a very high risk that it will never be a self sufficient human being, it should be up to the mother to decide if she agrees to carrying a life time burden, which would make her unable to run a regular life and encoumber also the new being with a life long pain and disability. Not every human has to be a moral hero and have a stamina of a proverbial saint. 

[BruceVC]

30 minutes ago, Darkpriest said:

One thing that I hope ppl in US will not have to face with the new balance of power in the SCOTUS is similar shenanigans to what so called Constitution's Tribunal did in Poland recently (after it got politicians of the ruling party nominated as majority of judges throughout last 5yrs)

They've decided to take a 27yrs old act, which was a healthy compromise on abortions, and ruled it as unconstitutional, and defend the decision, that it blocks eugenic driven acts of abortion. In fact it (now) was covering cases, where the future mothers could have decided for abortion, if the fetus had near certain level of risk for severe or lethal disability. This also covered cases in which the conditon of the unborn child could also threathen the health and life of the mother. 

This was done in such a way, to avoid a debate in the parliment and in the senate, which is shady. One can agree or disagree on morality issues, and when the fetus gets human rights of an individual and where is a boundry of mother's freedom and unborn individual's freedom, but things should not be done this way. 

 

Personally, I'm of opinion that abortion should not be a form of anticonception, however if the child would be disabled and there is a very high risk that it will never be a self sufficient human being, it should be up to the mother to decide if she agrees to carrying a life time burden, which would make her unable to run a regular life and encoumber also the new being with a life long pain and disability. Not every human has to be a moral hero and have a stamina of a proverbial saint. 

What about rape and someone falls pregnant, do you support abortion under those circumstances as well ?

[Darkpriest]

Just now, BruceVC said:

What about rape and someone falls pregnant, do you support abortion under those circumstances as well ?

No, those resulting from an unlawful act, such as rape and incest, are still legal to terminate the fetus. 

[Elerond]

1 hour ago, Darkpriest said:

One thing that I hope ppl in US will not have to face with the new balance of power in the SCOTUS is similar shenanigans to what so called Constitution's Tribunal did in Poland recently (after it got politicians of the ruling party nominated as majority of judges throughout last 5yrs)

They've decided to take a 27yrs old act, which was a healthy compromise on abortions, and ruled it as unconstitutional, and defend the decision, that it blocks eugenic driven acts of abortion. In fact it (now) was covering cases, where the future mothers could have decided for abortion, if the fetus had near certain level of risk for severe or lethal disability. This also covered cases in which the conditon of the unborn child could also threathen the health and life of the mother. 

This was done in such a way, to avoid a debate in the parliment and in the senate, which is shady. One can agree or disagree on morality issues, and when the fetus gets human rights of an individual and where is a boundry of mother's freedom and unborn individual's freedom, but things should not be done this way. 

 

Personally, I'm of opinion that abortion should not be a form of anticonception, however if the child would be disabled and there is a very high risk that it will never be a self sufficient human being, it should be up to the mother to decide if she agrees to carrying a life time burden, which would make her unable to run a regular life and encoumber also the new being with a life long pain and disability. Not every human has to be a moral hero and have a stamina of a proverbial saint. 

I would almost believe that these decisions are actually about ethics and/or saving lives if it wasn't fact that for some reasons need to protected these 'lives' seems to end when child is born and after that they become just another leaches that lives on other people's hard earned money

[Guard Dog]

@GromnirI was a little put off by the automatic assumption on how ACB was going to rule on cases she had not even heard yet. Even the regularly "liberal" justices are all over the map when it comes to applying law in decisions. The only two you could absolutely count on to be predictable were Ginsburg and Alito. Ginsurg once said something to the effect of "decide on the outcome you want and start your reasoning from there". That is exactly the opposite of what they should be doing I'd think. They should follow the text of the law wherever it leads not grab it by the ear and drag it where they want it to go. I think, with a few exceptions, they do a better job of that than they get credit for. 

[Malcador]

Best thing about this campaign has been Graham begging for money.

[Gromnir]

4 hours ago, Guard Dog said:

@Gromnir

predictability in a Justice is a good thing. if issue A shows up in Case B and a Justice decided yea on issue A previous, why would we think it is a good thing for the Justice to be unreliable and for us to have no idea how they will decide issue A in the future?  lack o' predictability o' a Justice or judge? how is that a good thing. sure, in most cases before the Court, Justices is s'posed to be deciding novel issues o' law. just because politicians and media misrepresents an issue as being well established do not make it so. predictable is less concrete if is a novel question. that said, am baffled at implication that unpredictability in a Justice or judge is a positive.

bork. all comes back to bork. know what a nominee were likely to decide on pivotal questions o' law were not considered a bad thing before bork. scalia was better known for sec and transactional stuff before being on the Court, nevertheless, we had a good idea o' how he would decide on a wide range o' 1st and 4th amendment cases previous to his senate approval.  good. is good to know a Justice is reliable. the thing is, bork made it obvious that having opinions which polarize is bad for a nominee. any appellate judge with SCOTUS aspirations stopped having opinions beyond their actual Court decisions, and even then, the silliness 'bout not being able to speak to an issue w/o knowing specific facts o' a case is idiotic. acb would have been absolute useless as a law school professor if she couldn't come to conclusions based on hypotheticals.

am thinking too many folks confuse ideological extreme with predictable. ginsburg v. alito? why those two for most predictable? most ideological extreme members o' the Court, even with ginsburg, were sotomayor and thomas. the thing is, on pivotal cases, thomas is extreme likely to go solo with a concurrence or dissent.

most predictable Justices current (scalia were extreme predictable before his death) is, in our opinion, kagan and kavanaugh. kagan has an extreme well developed legal philosophy and a large body o' scholarly and judicial work which makes her decisions predictable. predictable is good. 'course Justices need show their work. how a Justice arrives at a decision and the minutiae o' such decisions is just as important as is predictability. kavanaugh, for example, has been near as predictable as were scalia, but unfortunately legal philosophy guides kavanaugh a bit less than scalia or even thomas. kavanaugh is a political creature akin to rehnquist... who were also extreme predictable. 

there is a few Court pairs which is extreme dependable, but the exceptions to seeming rule is what gets attention. roberts and kavanaugh have a better than 90% chance o' deciding same, but as am sure gd is aware, roberts went against type in a few high-profile cases this last term. converse, sotomayor and ginsburg were lockstep almost as often as kavanaugh and roberts... almost. however, on the high profile cases there were no disagreement 'tween ginsburg and sotomayor. 

dunno. am thinking borking messed up everything.

ginsburg, btw, were the last Justice to clear state that roe v. wade were decided based on unsupported legal reasoning before being admitted to the Court. ironic?

HA! Good Fun!

ps so is clear, how predictable a Justice decides liberal or conservative is Not The Same as is how predictable is the Justices' decisions. sotomayor is most likely to decide liberal on so-called liberal scale. kagan, a s'posed liberal Justice, is less likely than sotomayor to decide predictable along the funky liberal v. conservative breakdown, but her decisions is amazing consistent given even a passing awareness o' kagan's philosophy and her past decisions.

probable is no more clear.

 

Edited October 27, 2020 by Gromnir

[Agiel]

Inside the Democrats’ battle to take back Texas

And I'm here wondering if we'll be seeing Trump doing for Texas what Pete Wilson did for California with Prop 187. Given how the measure had passed with an apparently overwhelming mandate on top of California having sent a Senator and Governor to the White House it would seem even more improbable to folks back then that the state would turn into a Democrat stronghold. But I could certainly see Trump's rhetoric poisoning the Republican brand to entire generations of Asian-American voters who otherwise were highly receptive to the fiscal conservatism the GOP had espoused, not to mention activating an atavistic sense of being undefended in the Latino population of the state in the same fashion Prop 187 had done in California.

[BruceVC]

30 minutes ago, Agiel said:

Inside the Democrats’ battle to take back Texas

And I'm here wondering if we'll be seeing Trump doing for Texas what Pete Wilson did for California with Prop 187. Given how the measure had passed with an apparently overwhelming mandate on top of California having sent a Senator and Governor to the White House it would seem even more improbable to folks back then that the state would turn into a Democrat stronghold. But I could certainly see Trump's rhetoric poisoning the Republican brand to entire generations of Asian-American voters who otherwise were highly receptive to the fiscal conservatism the GOP had espoused, not to mention activating an atavistic sense of being undefended in the Latino population of the state in the same fashion Prop 187 had done in California.

You make some interesting points, what would your reasons be  specifically  for saying that Trump has possibly alienated the Asian American community  ?

I know how he has offended other minorities but the reality is he hasn't offended all minorities. On CNN there was a guest, a prominent CBS journalist ,  from the Asian American community who was saying  for the first time in the history of voting she is now encouraging the Asian American community to vote for Biden and apparently this community does have real influence in some states around voting numbers 

Edited October 28, 2020 by BruceVC

[BruceVC]

9 hours ago, Malcador said:

Best thing about this campaign has been Graham begging for money.

I like Graham, he has received much criticism for flip flopping around his support for Trump and  specifically  Trumps vituperative views towards John McCain. Graham and McCain were good friends so this is understandable 

In fact there has been a general view that many Republicans are constantly quiet or lack the courage to openly criticize Trumps ostensibly offensive comments 

But I noticed an interesting pattern in the first 18 months of Trumps presidency, anytime a Republican did speak out against Trump he would openly use his base to ensure that person lost support and basically was fired. Now if you were a career politician, like Graham or Rubio, its not right that you lose your job  to a political neophyte like Trump because in 4 or 8 years he will be gone 

So what would I do if I was Republican politician, you keep quiet and find ways to get Trump to push a Conservative agenda which you would support like tax cuts and the Supreme Court placements but why lose your job to this upstart ?

Romney seems to be the only real Republican who has survived challenging Trump around expected voting choices in places like the Senate. Anyway what I  am saying is  its not worth losing your job if you are a Republican politician while Trump is president because he is a disruptor and will be gone in another 4 years maximum 

So you keep quiet and wait for the " Trump political storm " to end one way or another 

 

[Gromnir]

@Guard Dog

one point we tangential spoke to but is possible gd and others is unaware, so am gonna address brief. 

questions which come  before the Court is ordinarily novel in at least some important way. the democrats and more liberal media has done a fantastic job o' selling Americans on the notion that acb on the Court is a death knell for roe, griswold, obergefell and even loving. is not an unjustified position as multiple Justices has expressed a desire to overturn and so too does acb based on past articles.

HOWEVER, and this is a big however, the affordable care act is what the democrats were hitting hard during the acb hearings, and is far less clear acb would vote to strike down obamacare based on the case coming before the Court. while it is true acb criticized the roberts decision upholding the aca, the current case is dealing with a novel legal question only tangential related to the previous aca case. the current aca case deals with a question o' law acb has addressed previous and her previous decisions actual suggest she would vote to preserve the aca insofar as the current case is concerned.

'cause people do not know the law, politicians may spin issues such as acb and her threat to the aca. am thinking mcconnell efforts to get acb on the Court will backfire. as we noted previous, getting acb sworn in before the election means is no longer a voting issue, so no motivation to get apathetic conservatives to vote. however, the fear democrats managed to drum up insofar as the aca being in danger during a pandemic may just result in one and possibly a couple republican senators losing their seats. 

long term the acb appointment may be a gain for conservatives, but if republicans lose the senate, it will be at least in part 'cause democrats adept used the hearings to create a whole lotta anger 'bout doomed roe and aca and the truth is the aca is looking anything but doomed from our pov.

HA! Good Fun!

Edited October 28, 2020 by Gromnir