America - The Official Thread

[Sanji Himura]

Mr. Birdsall said Mr. Paxton’s office had been prepared to dismiss all charges against Ms. Ortega if she agreed to testify on voting procedures before the Texas Legislature. But the Tarrant County criminal district attorney, Sharen Wilson, vetoed that deal, he said, insisting on a trial that would showcase her office’s efforts to crack down on election fraud.


This Punishment doesn't fit the crime, it's just using someone to score political points.

I happen to live in Tarrant County. That is one vote that I wish that I had back.

 

[MeanElf]

...Also Almost 200 illegal immigrants have been arrested. Say what you want but he's getting stuff done.

You could say the same about Teresa May: sure she's getting things done, the country will be pummelled left and right with policies that affect the majority of people badly, but hey, she's getting things done...

It's more a question of getting the right things done, and of course how they are done too. He's dangerous and this goes far beyond just local opinion.

 

[ryzno]

He's dangerous and this goes far beyond just local opinion.

I'm curious what you find dangerous that he's doing or about him?

 

[Danoff]

Why does it need to be equal? It doesn't need to be equal, but it seems like reasonable goal to help all children to reach their full potential regardless of the circumstances they were born into. Society as a whole will benefit from that too.

It might seem like a reasonable goal to help all children get an equal start, but one of the big motivating factors for parents is to provide for their children. Take that away and I think you'd see very few reach their full potential. In other words, by immorally preventing parents from providing a little more for their kid than the kid next door, not only have you used force against an innocent person, but you have likely set back "society" in doing so.

Danoff may be fine with sticking with (his) morality over performance, it seems pretty clear that that is not a point of view shared by the vast majority of Americans.

I think the vast majority of Americans aren't really thinking about it. If you made it clear, a lot of them wouldn't compromise their morals for a little extra wealth*.


*And that extra wealth is assumed. I don't think it's real given that it's predicated on a society that doesn't respect rights.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Meanwhile out of the political mumbo jumbo that has taken over this country, 130,000 people in California were evacuated tonight as a nearby dam could completely collapse in short order.

Obama's fault.

 

[Biggles]

I think the vast majority of Americans aren't really thinking about it. If you made it clear, a lot of them wouldn't compromise their morals for a little extra wealth.

It seems pretty clear based on the way that people vote, that the vast majority of Americans don't share your economic/political views & don't share your sense of the morality that relates to those views.

It might seem like a reasonable goal to help all children get an equal start, but one of the big motivating factors for parents is to provide for their children. Take that away and I think you'd see very few reach their full potential. In other words, by immorally preventing parents from providing a little more for their kid than the kid next door, not only have you used force against an innocent person, but you have likely set back "society" in doing so.

Do you really believe this? Most parents do want to provide for their children, some don't. The ones that don't aren't likely to be motivated whether or not the government provides services like education. The education is intended to help the children not to help the parents. Very few people want to prevent "parents from providing a little more for their kid than the kid next door", mostly they want to ensure a better opportunity for kids who don't have the advantages of wealthy, committed parents. Again, it's not about the parents, it's about the children - it's a sense of having a societal obligation to children that goes beyond simply parental obligations.

The reality is that kids growing up & in poor rural & urban communities are disadvantaged in terms of educational
outcomes. Blaming it on "parents who don't care" doesn't change that. Trump's purported agenda - bringing back high-paying manufacturing jobs to some of these communities strikes me as extremely unrealistic. Either US workers would have to accept far lower wages in order to compete with overseas workers, or extremely high tariffs on imports would raise the cost of living to a level that would lower the living standard of all Americans, especially the poor. Most likely it would be a combination of the two.

 

[JockeP22]

I'm watching this live stream which shows the current situation
on site as well as providing audio from an ongoing press conference.

 

[Danoff]

It seems pretty clear based on the way that people vote, that the vast majority of Americans don't share your economic/political views & don't share your sense of the morality that relates to those views.

Really? I don't know how you can suss out what anyone is thinking based on the way people have been voting, especially in the last decade.

Do you really believe this? Most parents do want to provide for their children, some don't. The ones that don't aren't likely to be motivated whether or not the government provides services like education. The education is intended to help the children not to help the parents. Very few people want to prevent "parents from providing a little more for their kid than the kid next door", mostly they want to ensure a better opportunity for kids who don't have the advantages of wealthy, committed parents. Again, it's not about the parents, it's about the children - it's a sense of having a societal obligation to children that goes beyond simply parental obligations.

I understand that you're crying "it's for the children". I'm explaining that what you're advocating is a complete destruction of parental responsibility. Making sure that every child gets the same start in life means locking up a parent who wants to give their kid a little extra. If you want all of the kids to have an equal start it has to be illegal to hire a private tutor. It has to be wrong to confer an advantage on them.

Kids tend to emulate their parents, and learn a great deal from them. So really if you want to give all kids the same start in life, they need to be institutionalized - which is very harmful for them, but hey at least nobody gets an unfair advantage.

Children are a big motivator for parents. Parents spend gobs of money to get in to better school districts. They buy houses they don't need and burn extra time and fossil fuels to get to work so that their kids can go to a slightly better rated public school. It's a big driver in the housing market.

I get that you're looking at this only from the perspective of children, but the implications of giving everyone the same start are quite destructive. A minimum level threshold, of course, I could get behind, and have already advocated.

The reality is that kids growing up & in poor rural & urban communities are disadvantaged in terms of educational outcomes. Blaming it on "parents who don't care" doesn't change that.

The reality is that some kids will always be disadvantaged compared to other kids no matter what you think is the reason (unless we genetically engineer them and institutionalize them). And we need to accept that reality, and even embrace it as an outcome of a society that is, to any extent, driven by productivity.

 

[CodeRedR51]

Obama's fault.

Isn't everything?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Isn't everything?

If they can't prove he did it, they're just rename the San Andreas Fault the Obama Fault.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Isn't everything?

What goes around comes around. For years we had to listen to the Obama Administration saying that it was Bush's fault over and over. That is just the way it works. Don't worry though, in 8 years everyone will be saying it was all Trump's fault.

 

[CodeRedR51]

What goes around comes around. For years we had to listen to the Obama Administration saying that it was Bush's fault over and over. That is just the way it works. Don't worry though, in 8 years everyone will be saying it was all Trump's fault.

I'm sure we were both joking but ok...

 

[MeanElf]

I'm curious what you find dangerous that he's doing or about him?

You are being serious? The list, even after just three weeks is already quite long, but I will give you a couple of things I feel that back my point up.

The whole breaking up of the environmental policies thing and dismantling alternative energy sources will have a massive effect on not just your patch, but across the whole world.

45 has all but stated he intends to use nuclear weapons at some point. Fortunately there are military checks in place to ensure that he can't go all Gen J D Ripper on the first nation that upsets him, after all Nixon on several occasions ordered nuclear strikes when drunk but his staff countermanded those outbursts. Despite those checks, I call 45's attitude a dangerous state of mind to have even before becoming the president. Now that he actually is that person, his Narcissistic Personality Disorder is the real danger behind every other thing that can make him dangerous.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

I'm sure we were both joking but ok...

Oh, we both were.

The problem is that it might actually happen. Trump wants to repeal some legislation introduced after the global financial crisis limiting what the reserve bank can do and when. But rather than pitching it as "this legislation has served its purpose and to keep it in place would be detrimental to the economy", he made it clear that he was going after it because Obama introduced it.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Michael Flynn has resigned from his role as national security advisor after reports emerged claiming that he had misled officials over his contact with Russia prior to Trump's inauguration. Meanwhile, Trump is under fire for discussing national security at a public event:

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-14/donald-trump-mar-a-lago-north-korea/8268042

 

[Com Fox]

Meanwhile, Trump is under fire for discussing national security at a public event:

I donlt get how national security being public is a problem. Mind someone explain it?

 

[TenEightyOne]

I donlt get how national security being public is a problem. Mind someone explain it?

Most people would accept that discussions about a country's military/political response to armed escalation by an "enemy" power would be held behind closed doors rather than at a noisy, public dinner. Surely?

Not trump, of course, it fills his sails.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Surely?

Surely.

It was a test-firing of a missile by North Korea; hardly a grave or immediate threat. It wouldn't have been hard to delay the meeting by fifteen or twenty minutes to set everything up in a secure space.

 

[Grayfox]

Most people would accept that discussions about a country's military/political response to armed escalation by an "enemy" power would be held behind closed doors rather than at a noisy, public dinner. Surely?

Not trump, of course, it fills his sails.

No it fills is bank account since he used tax payer money at his own club house.

 

[McLaren]

Hamilton's fault.

FTFY.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

FTFY.

Believe it or not, it is. Sort of.

 

[prisonermonkeys]

Looks like the situation with Flynn could have some pretty serious consequences:

Is it credible the man he [Trump] appointed to the most influential security post in the United States then had multiple conversations with the Russians without the President's knowledge or authority?

Did Michael Flynn really run rogue and do clandestine deals with the Kremlin without telling his boss a thing?

Or was a President already publicly wooing Vladimir Putin happy to let his main security man unofficially do deals that may or may not have been on the right side of the law?

At this point, we just don't know. But there are armies of journalists and disgruntled Washington insiders who are working around the clock trying to answer a question that has the potential to threaten the careers all the way to the top.

I fully expect that Trump will make Flynn the sacrificial lamb for the sake of protecting the administration, but the real question is whether or not people will accept the idea that Flynn was working of his own volition.

 

[Dotini]

Looks like the situation with Flynn could have some pretty serious consequences:


I fully expect that Trump will make Flynn the sacrificial lamb for the sake of protecting the administration, but the real question is whether or not people will accept the idea that Flynn was working of his own volition.

We are looking for a reason to impeach the president, and do it fast. Is this the one?

At this point, it might be best for the lifelong liberal yet malleable Mr Trump to become bored and disenchanted, and resign in favor the born again. Oh what joy and deliverance is to come?

 

[ryzno]

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/13/politics/donald-trump-shinzo-abe-north-korea-documents/
Trump's patio situation room after NK missile launch raises security questions
The only site I could find...

 

[Pillo-san]

@huskeR32, why would a retail clerk, an accountant, an entertainer, a fiction writer, an artist, a professional athlete need to know anything about the scientific method? Why should they even care if it exists or not?

This is such an odd way of thinking...
How would you then get anyone to get hooked on something they like ie get them interested in becoming something. Sure not everyone get to be what they want but this is even more evident that a person needs to know more then what it is needed in their field of work.
You want everyone to get their roles/education/profession decided by birth?

Of course everyone needs to know a little bit of everything.

 

[Johnnypenso]

This is such an odd way of thinking...
How would you then get anyone to get hooked on something they like ie get them interested in becoming something..

The same way they have for ages. They see it in action, they try it or they just intuitively know they want to do it.

Sure not everyone get to be what they want but this is even more evident that a person needs to know more then what it is needed in their field of work.

Knowing the scientific method won't increase my income nor will it increase the income of most people. Why would I need to know that more than the ins and outs of my chosen profession?

You want everyone to get their roles/education/profession decided by birth?

What?

Of course everyone needs to know a little bit of everything

Why? I have many friends that don't know much of what I know, and, in turn, I don't know much of what they know, especially in the fields that they are trained and proficient in. We call get along fine, with each other and with the world.

 

[Pillo-san]

The same way they have for ages. They see it in action, they try it or they just intuitively know they want to do it.
Knowing the scientific method won't increase my income nor will it increase the income of most people. Why would I need to know that more than the ins and outs of my chosen profession?What?Why? I have many friends that don't know much of what I know, and, in turn, I don't know much of what they know, especially in the fields that they are trained and proficient in. We call get along fine, with each other and with the world.

So in other words you basically want a class based society like in the middle ages to early 1900 where a son of a smith takes over the profession of his father? when you say "the same way they have for ages"

Knowing the scientific method, what are you talking about? (Do not twist and over exaggerate...) No, it is about knowing the newest way/procedures/experiments a scientist is doing/performing in his line of work. It is getting to know the basic like you do in school right now. In school you get to learn multiple of things that later on gets more specialised depending what you are drawn too.. If you only know what you need to in your line of work/profession then you cant function in a society properly. If you get a puncture on your car in the middle of nowhere will you stand there like a scarecrow and wait for someone with right knowledge/profession to help you? Sounds like the Simpsons episode where Flanders is the ruler and everyone else are just lobotomized zombies. Nice dystopian future you want.


What what?

If you dont want that the kids get to learn different subjects so that they later can decide what they want to do, then you want a class based society where my son get to learn what I can or that every citizen gets a role in the society decided by birth.

The latest sentences about you and your friend is what I am talking about, if we would go by your standards then everyone would get their roles and knowledge pre decided for them. Why would you want that?
He knows about this and that and you know about something else and yet maybe you have same work or maybe not, who cares. But the thing is, we all need to know what is in the jar before we can pick out or at least try to get what we want...

It is Always the same people saying the most strange things, in here.

 

[Danoff]

It is Always the same people saying the most strange things, in here.

Indeed.

 

[Famine]

It is Always the same people saying the most strange things, in here.

Yep. You.

The question was what use learning about the scientific method is to a professional athlete (or any other profession where the scientific method is rarely, if ever, used). You've decided that this means anyone asking that question wants a return to a feudal society... for some reason.

 

[Pillo-san]

Because it was so obvious that he thinks a key account manager or professional athlete does not need to bother learn stuff other than what is needed in his line of profession.

Of course they need to know other stuff, how would they know what they like. The most important thing is that they had exposure to lots of different subjects in school, that they could use as a guide to become or at least try to be what they wanted in life. And yet you again try to twist stuff so that I am on the edge here.

I must be honest and say that I am afraid of how some of you think. And hope noone of you have a political position.