Politics 2017 Act 6

[Hurlshort]

As a parent, let me tell you, the vast majority of all these new entertainment options are garbage. PBS is consistently the best choice for young kids. It is the gold standard. Nothing exceeds it, heck, nothing comes close to matching it. Everything Mr. Rogers said is still true, very few programs out there deal with the whole child.

[Malcador]

On the subject of PBS, it will suprise none of you if I have a problem with my tax dollars going to fund a TV and radio network (other than AFRTS). But since it was a tiny drop in a big budget bucket and for around forty years of it's existence it was filling a void when most TV viewers could only watch 3-4 major networks and a handful of independent stations, none of which could be called educational. But in today's times with nearly endless streaming and traditional options, many and more of which far exceed PBS in educational and cultural value, does PBS still have a place? Is it still worthy of those few drops from the budget bucket that fund it? I'm going to say no.

News Hour is worth it.

[Pidesco]

Talking about those and other tiny drops in the budget amounts to discussing angels and pinheads. There's a gigantic raise to the already gargantuan defense budget and a proposal to spend I don't know how many billions on literally useless infrastructure, that dwarfs all the comparatively tiny budget cuts.

[Volourn]

TV should not be government funded. All that leads is to government brainwashing. It doiesn't even matter to me if the particular thing is something I agree with the gov't should not be the tv business. PERIOD.

[Valsuelm]

Single dad on child support, that tax refund is the only way I stay afloat at times.

 

Stop giving an interest free loan to the government.

[Elerond]

TV should not be government funded. All that leads is to government brainwashing. It doiesn't even matter to me if the particular thing is something I agree with the gov't should not be the tv business. PERIOD.

 

I must say that I disagree in funding part, as in my opinion publicly funded TV can excellent competition to commercial channels if its is managed and supervised independently from the government. Of course there is constant risk of government influencing how it operates, which is the reason for independent supervision. Like for example how CEO of our national broadcasting company had to resign, because he first intervene how said company's newsroom write about our prime minister and then said that he don't need to listen the supervising body that checks that they follow ethical journalistic code.

 

PS. I find it bit surprising that PBS has smaller operational budget than our national broadcasting company.

[Valsuelm]

Unfortunately the Repubes aren't where 80% of the country is on this, they want Ocare fixed, not repealed. https://twitter.com/kausmickey/status/867714366229012480

 

80%?

[Valsuelm]

 

But then we got that era where every kid had to medicated bc of ADHD/add/etc when before parents just beat ur ass until u straitened up

 

Yes, the old fashioned way was just perfect. Getting my literal ass kicked when the teacher said I had trouble paying attention in school totally did something to fix that problem. It didn't leave me a crippled, suicidal adult that needs several types of medication and major therapy just to survive, let alone function. Not at all.

 

 

Something bad happened to you, but that wasn't it....

[Namutree]

 

 

But then we got that era where every kid had to medicated bc of ADHD/add/etc when before parents just beat ur ass until u straitened up

 

Yes, the old fashioned way was just perfect. Getting my literal ass kicked when the teacher said I had trouble paying attention in school totally did something to fix that problem. It didn't leave me a crippled, suicidal adult that needs several types of medication and major therapy just to survive, let alone function. Not at all.

 

 

Something bad happened to you, but that wasn't it....

 

Let's not pretend we know TrueNeutral or what did or did not happen to him.

[Blarghagh]

Thanks, but you don't have to defend me Namu. I don't care what he thinks.

[Amentep]

black voters, who were historical voting republican, the party of Lincoln, do a 180 and vote for jk 'gainst nixon.

 

According to data from the Joint Center for Political and Economic studies, African American voters had been voting overwhelmingly Democrat in US Presidential races at least as early as 1936.  Anecdotally I've heard that this can - at least partially - be attributed to Eleanor Roosevelt making sure New Deal legislation applied equally to whites and blacks and her outreach to African Americans, but I don't know if there's any hard data on that.

 

No Republican Presidential candidate has - since 1936 when the Joint Center started compiling data - carried more than 40% of the vote; the closest was in the 1956 election when incumbent Eisenhower pulled just under 40%.

[Guard Dog]

Screw it... I can't make the embed media work... I don't know why. Here's the link. It's funny.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21lhiKfc1p4&feature=youtu.be

Edited May 30, 2017 by Guard Dog

[Gromnir]

 

black voters, who were historical voting republican, the party of Lincoln, do a 180 and vote for jk 'gainst nixon.

 

According to data from the Joint Center for Political and Economic studies, African American voters had been voting overwhelmingly Democrat in US Presidential races at least as early as 1936.  Anecdotally I've heard that this can - at least partially - be attributed to Eleanor Roosevelt making sure New Deal legislation applied equally to whites and blacks and her outreach to African Americans, but I don't know if there's any hard data on that.

 

No Republican Presidential candidate has - since 1936 when the Joint Center started compiling data - carried more than 40% of the vote; the closest was in the 1956 election when incumbent Eisenhower pulled just under 40%.

 

kinda misleading, though we did leave out an important descriptor: southern.  southern black voters were still voting republican previous to kennedy.  can do funny stuff with numbers.  for example, the democrats actual didn't exceed 50% o' the black vote until the 1950s.  keep in mind independent candidates was typical receiving ~20% o' the black vote. actual, in point o' fact, during much o' the roosevelt years, national black republican voting increased so as to be even with democrats, so am not thinking eleanor helped much.

 

the kennedy election saw a sharp increase o' near +30% for national black voting for democrats.  the increase came almost complete from southern black voters. the civil rights act o' 1964 further skewed and there ain't been no looking back.  was a paradigm shift.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Bartimaeus]

Screw it... I can't make the embed media work... I don't know why. Here's the link. It's funny.

 

 

Gotta get rid of the "&feature=youtu.be" tag at the end for it to automatically embed...and because you already posted it, you have to remove the bbcode in BBCode mode (or just remove it entirely and re-paste the link without the aforementioned tag) because the forums automatically hotlink it with the original link that you posted.

 

See above.

 

(e): I might as well take this opportunity to complain about the BBCode mode being broken again, because yes, it's still broken, and yes, the default non-BBCode mode is terrible, and so the current state of affairs is also terrible. It sure would be nice if it were fixed.

Edited May 30, 2017 by Bartimaeus

[Wrath of Dagon]

I watched half of that video thinking it was Hillary, not Trump (I don't have sound right now).

[Malcador]

 

 

 

Screw it... I can't make the embed media work... I don't know why. Here's the link. It's funny.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21lhiKfc1p4

Gotta get rid of the "&feature=youtu.be" tag at the end for it to automatically embed...and because you already posted it, you have to remove the bbcode in BBCode mode (or just remove it entirely and re-paste the link without the aforementioned tag) because the forums automatically hotlink it with the original link that you posted.

 

See above.

 

(e): I might as well take this opportunity to complain about the BBCode mode being broken again, because yes, it's still broken, and yes, the default non-BBCode mode is terrible, and so the current state of affairs is also terrible. It sure would be nice if it were fixed.

Always a good idea to scrub the POST/GET stuff off URLs anyway. Amazing the amount of junk in there sometimes.

[Malcador]

Spicer's appraisal of Trump's speech was hilarious. Trump united civilizations

[Elerond]

Spicer's appraisal of Trump's speech was hilarious. Trump united civilizations

 

Technically he united EU leaders to think that USA is hostile state 

[Guard Dog]

I found this interesting. There is a thing here in the US called Qualified Immunity for Police officers. If they have to use deadly force in the execution of their jobs they receive criminal and civil immunity from the consequences of those actions. As long as the actions were justified. Then about 15 years ago there was a case where a police officer internationally (or recklessly) created a situation where deadly force was required to defend themselves. In that case the US 9th Circuit found the police WERE liable if they created the situation by a violation of law or the rights of the citizen involved. For example, if a cop enters your home with no warrant or probable cause and finds you there with a gun and shoots you, they are in big trouble. That is called the Provocation Doctrine.

 

Which is exactly what happened in Los Angeles v Mendez. Two LA County detectives entered the home of Angel Mendez and his girlfriend with no warrant. The found Mendez inside with a BB Gun. They shot him and his girlfriend (who was unarmed) multiple times. Mendez survived but lost his leg as a result. Mendez has sued obviously and it went to the same 9th Circuit Court. They decided in favor on Mendez and held that the police were "liable for the shooting as a foreseeable consequence of their unconstitutional entry even though the shooting itself was not unconstitutionally excessive force under the Fourth Amendment".

 

The case was then appealed to the SCOTUS who published their decision yesterday. The link is at the bottom. It's a long read, 14 pages. But my understanding of it is they struck down the Provocation Doctrine by a vote of 8-0. Now some media outlets are calling this a win for the police but that's not exactly they way I read it. The Court is not saying the police didn't violate the 4th Amendment rights of Mendez. They did. They are saying the fact that they did can't be bootstrapped into an excessive force claim. In other words they are two separate issues rather than one.

 

Personally I thought the Provocation Doctrine made a hell of a lot of sense. I don't hold the Police in the same warm regard as many of my fellow Americans seem to. Many of them, maybe even most of them are decent folks trying to do a good job for their community. But a lot of them are badge heavy authoritarians who lack the character or intelligence to be trusted with firearms or legal power. And far too many are shockingly ignorant of the laws they are out there enforcing. If you are going to arm people with guns, and the legal authority to kill, seize, confiscate, and imprison, you should be holding them to the highest standards with no tolerance for violations they know are wrong.

 

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/16-369_09m1.pdf

[Elerond]

 

 

Spicer's appraisal of Trump's speech was hilarious. Trump united civilizations

Technically he united EU leaders to think that USA is hostile state

That's great. Anyone that is hostile towards the IV Reich is a good guy.

 

 

It's good to hear that Isis and other rapists, child killing murders are now good guys

[Bartimaeus]

In other news, Trump has withdrawn the U.S. from the Paris climate deal, making them one of three countries (Nicaragua and Syria being the others) to not be party to it.

Edited May 31, 2017 by Bartimaeus

[Blarghagh]

You didn't say any country, you said anyone.

[Gfted1]

The EU doesnt even like the EU. Between strongarming weaker economies and founding members leaving, this experiment may not last another 10 years.

[Chilloutman]

The EU doesnt even like the EU. Between strongarming weaker economies and founding members leaving, this experiment may not last another 10 years.

And its damn shame :/

[Wrath of Dagon]

In other news, Trump has withdrawn the U.S. from the Paris climate deal, making them one of three countries (Nicaragua and Syria being the others) to not be party to it.

We won't always have Paris.