This only makes sense to me from a "Trump is a huge narcissist" angle.
of states he won
I've been trying to make a joke of this, that me being in Wisconsin has suddenly made me a slightly higher class of citizen, but I... I don't think that's really a joke right now.
Please, can someone tell me I'm wrong? I'd really appreciate it.
0
Options
I ZimbraWorst song, played on ugliest guitarRegistered Userregular
This only makes sense to me from a "Trump is a huge narcissist" angle.
of states he won
I've been trying to make a joke of this, that me being in Wisconsin has suddenly made me a slightly higher class of citizen, but I... I don't think that's really a joke right now.
Please, can someone tell me I'm wrong? I'd really appreciate it.
We're in the wrong part of Wisconsin for him so I'm not sure that we really count.
Republican leaders told rank and file members at this morning's conference meeting that they intend to use a somewhat obscure statute -- the Congressional Review Act -- to nullify some of the most recent Obama Administration regulations, according to multiple GOP sources -- including a rule expanding who qualifies for overtime pay.
Republicans could alter their short-term funding bill, dubbed the "CR" inside the Capitol, to wipe out Obama executive orders made this year. The maneuver would allow them to reach back in the year a limited amount of time -- 60 days on the legislative calendar, which is different than a regular calendar -- to wipe out the regulations.
But to do that, they'll have to pass the measure as soon as possible -- well before the end of this calendar year.
Ryan and other top House GOP leaders told members at Thursday's Republican conference meeting that they plan to hold a vote on a CR that would fund the government just through March 31, 2017.
That means Trump would be in office for only about two months when a fresh funding bill will need to be enacted -- to avoid a government shutdown -- allowing him to implement spending priorities and reforms he advocated while a candidate.
How do they expect to get something like that passed when Obama would have to sign it?
They're tying it to shutting down the government. I don't really see the advantage since Trump could reverse most of these decisions anyway...
"If we look back to the second debate, Bone stated in an interview that while he was "impressed" with Clinton, he was still more inclined to vote Trump. Considering that this was after a year of scandals in which Trump had been charged with with everything from racism to sexual assault, it's hard to imagine what could possibly sway a voter who's still convinced Trump could be a better president than Clinton. It leads one to conclude that either Bone found Clinton's scandals about emails and her foundation more concerning than Trump's controversial behavior, or he genuinely felt the Republican was a more capable candidate than the Democrat."
That Hillary could not, while on the podium, specify one thing she could do to demonstrate that Ken Bone specifically would not have financial problems as a result of energy policy makes it seem like Ken voted Trump. the way he posed his question makes him out to be like a smart self interested voter move to get her to demonstrate her priorities, how much she gives a shit about people who are going to be economically affected by energy transition- the horror story of manufacturing lingers like an implication as well, one that people didn't even see until after the election- the question of whether what happened to the factory workers will happen to others too. Nobody prioritized that. It was on no one's radar. Trump made it his priority to exploit that.
Republican leaders told rank and file members at this morning's conference meeting that they intend to use a somewhat obscure statute -- the Congressional Review Act -- to nullify some of the most recent Obama Administration regulations, according to multiple GOP sources -- including a rule expanding who qualifies for overtime pay.
Republicans could alter their short-term funding bill, dubbed the "CR" inside the Capitol, to wipe out Obama executive orders made this year. The maneuver would allow them to reach back in the year a limited amount of time -- 60 days on the legislative calendar, which is different than a regular calendar -- to wipe out the regulations.
But to do that, they'll have to pass the measure as soon as possible -- well before the end of this calendar year.
Ryan and other top House GOP leaders told members at Thursday's Republican conference meeting that they plan to hold a vote on a CR that would fund the government just through March 31, 2017.
That means Trump would be in office for only about two months when a fresh funding bill will need to be enacted -- to avoid a government shutdown -- allowing him to implement spending priorities and reforms he advocated while a candidate.
How do they expect to get something like that passed when Obama would have to sign it?
They're tying it to shutting down the government. I don't really see the advantage since Trump could reverse most of these decisions anyway...
Because employers have been preparing for the payroll change, and if it stays in place they'll hedge their bets and switch exempt employees making less than 47k to hourly
once the switch happens, it's unlikely it'll be switched back quickly
If we look back to the second debate, Bone stated in an interview that while he was "impressed" with Clinton, he was still more inclined to vote Trump. Considering that this was after a year of scandals in which Trump had been charged with with everything from racism to sexual assault, it's hard to imagine what could possibly sway a voter who's still convinced Trump could be a better president than Clinton. It leads one to conclude that either Bone found Clinton's scandals about emails and her foundation more concerning than Trump's controversial behavior, or he genuinely felt the Republican was a more capable candidate than the Democrat.
That Hillary could not, while on the podium, specify one thing she could do to demonstrate that Ken Bone specifically would not have financial problems as a result of energy policy seems to be like a smart self interested voter move on the part of Ken to get her to demonstrate how much she gives a shit about people who are going to be affected by energy transition- the horror story of manufacturing lingers like an implication as well, one that people didn't even see until after the election- the question of whether what happened to the factory workers will happen to others too.
And I support moving towards more clean renewable energy as quickly as we can. Because I think we can be the 21st century clean energy superpower and create millions of new jobs and businesses. But I want to be sure that we don't leave people behind. That’s why I'm the only candidate from the very beginning of this campaign who had a plan to help us revitalize coal country. Because those coal miners and their fathers and grandfathers, they dug that coal out, a lot of them lost their lives. They were injured. But they turn the lights on and powered our factories. I don't want to walk away from them. So we’ve got to do something for them. But the price of coal is down worldwide. We have to look at this comprehensively and that's what I have proposed. I hope you will go to hillaryclinton.com and read my entire policy.
The idea that Hillary Clinton was short on exact policy details and that's why she lost is just so ....
Like what politician says "Sure, downtrodden white person whose vote we 100% would kill to gain, but you're doing better than some black people so I don't care, allow me to proceed to insult you..."?
*No* politicians say that. It's a sociological term that has been taken to heart by earnest young kids online. So you hear it quite a lot from student types and *absolutely never* from professional politicians, because they are not stupid. Honestly, from the way right-wingers talk you'd think that it was every second word out of President Obama's mouth.
"Imagine, for example, a white man who lost a factory job due to globalization and saw his sister die from a drug overdose due to the opioid painkiller and heroin epidemic — situations that aren’t uncommon today. He tries to complain about his circumstances. But his concerns are downplayed by a politician or racial justice activist, who instead points out that at least he’s doing better than black and brown folks if you look at broad socioeconomic measures."
I'm legit having trouble imagining this.
Like what politician says "Sure, downtrodden white person whose vote we 100% would kill to gain, but you're doing better than some black people so I don't care, allow me to proceed to insult you..."?
The democrat says to that hypothetical man, we need to improve things for everyone and be an inclusive society for everyone regardless of their background. It's a platform and rhetoric that's not specifically tailored for people that live in towns with no minorities and don't plan on leaving.
Trump says hey, everyone's ignoring your dilapidated town. Their saying black lives matter, what about your life? Everyone forgot you, there's no infrastructure here since the 80s. you know what else has changed since the 80s? *dogwhistle*
Do they?
Which Democratic politician says that?
Like which Democratic politician has made this very strange and simple mistake of responding to voters asking for help by refusing to say anything about their jobs program or economic incentives or the ways they will specifically help this person and the town and the state and yea the very nation?
Because I mean if this is where we're at and the actual issue is that Democratic policymakers can't recall their own policy and repeat it back to folks when prompted we really don't have a lot of work to do.
Hillary talked about energy policies, told Ken Bone to look at her website, and paid lip service to coal miners and coal country of the past. But Ken Bone still works in coal. who was clearly concerned about energy policy affecting coal like the end of manufacturing, like how the end of mining in the UK has depressed towns to the extent that they still haven't recovered. Promising to "create new jobs and businesses" without specifying it somewhere other than a long article on your website is a horrible way to get people to believe you give a shit about them. Praising coal miners who kept the lights on in the past and not wanting to abandon them rings hollow- there are people who have been abandoned by the neoliberal economic system, and they're still abandoned.
Trump said Ken Bone could count on keeping his keep his coal job, and there would be even more jobs for Ken's friends and family. Trump knew what Ken and his ilk really wanted to hear.
on a more literal level, no democrat says anything at all to uneducated poor rural voters because they don't bother campaigning in places with cult like devotion to republicans.
Clinton gave a real policy answer (though whether the policy would even work is a whole other question), Trump gave a lie that sounded better basically.
Honestly. I'm really worried that the left might take the people complaining about mean SJWs too seriously while we're all in a panic and not thinking clearly.
I'm sure it's just a coincidence that people expressing certain concerns in MRA and Feminism and Gabble Gator threads are some of the same people expressing certain concerns in the election threads now.
Hopefully people don't fall for that brand of hand-wringing any more now than we have in the past.
While terms like “racist,” “white privilege,” and “implicit bias” intend to point out systemic biases in America, for white Americans they’re often seen as coded slurs. These terms don’t signal to them that they’re doing something wrong, but that their supposedly racist attitudes (which they would deny having at all) are a justification for lawmakers and other elites to ignore their problems.
Imagine, for example, a white man who lost a factory job due to globalization and saw his sister die from a drug overdose due to the opioid painkiller and heroin epidemic — situations that aren’t uncommon today. He tries to complain about his circumstances. But his concerns are downplayed by a politician or racial justice activist, who instead points out that at least he’s doing better than black and brown folks if you look at broad socioeconomic measures.
"White privilege" is a way of sociologically explaining why white people do better in America than most other races without going all Bell Curve and saying "They are just better." It *isn't* a way of insulting white people who do less well than average. Some immature, young liberals might use it that way but they are *wrong.* That's not what it means.
Social justice activists are *rarely* saying "You may be homeless and starving but at least you are white and privileged!" They are saying "The reason why there are proportionately more homeless and hungry black people than white is white privilege."
Who are you explaining this to?
The thread, I guess. A lot of people here think it is a horrible thing that liberals say to make poor white people feel like shit. I was explaining what it actually meant.
That's the thing. It's such a toxic term, in no small part, because it is completely unhelpful. The only good that comes from it, is when a more progressive liberal, explains it to a slightly less progressive liberal. Joe center has never harassed a minority, hasn't denied one a job on the basis of their skin color, and would treat any that they met with respect. Joe Center might hold some prejudices that he should work on but isn't going to subscribe to collectivism. Telling him all about his white privilege, when he can't afford healthcare, college, or reasonable home ownership, is going to piss him off because he hasn't been handed anything. White privilege is how everyone should be treated, some people might not get that because, duh, they aren't white, and racism still exists, but that doesn't equate to Joe Center getting something extra. So talking about white privilege pisses off Joe Center who isn't our enemy anyway, and gives the alt right hard on's. It's just toxic.
Any criticism isn't really directed at you, just trying to show the issues with it.
Sure, but the key thing here is that for 99.9% of these people outraged by the term, no one is ever saying it to them.
Most people enraged by someone saying "check your privilege" have never had someone tell them to check their privilege. They don't swim in the same social media circles as those who use those phrases
What actually happens is a piece of conservative media either finds something vaguely like it happening somewhere to someone else or makes a mountain of a molehill or finds one of the dozens of people out there willing to make themselves a "martyr" (read - attention whore) over something someone said to them or just fabricates one from nothing and prints a story about it and sells it to their audience to get them riled up.
They aren't outraged that someone is saying it to them, they are outraged someone told them someone somewhere did it. It's the outrage porn market and it's a deep and profitable pit to mine.
While terms like “racist,” “white privilege,” and “implicit bias” intend to point out systemic biases in America, for white Americans they’re often seen as coded slurs. These terms don’t signal to them that they’re doing something wrong, but that their supposedly racist attitudes (which they would deny having at all) are a justification for lawmakers and other elites to ignore their problems.
Imagine, for example, a white man who lost a factory job due to globalization and saw his sister die from a drug overdose due to the opioid painkiller and heroin epidemic — situations that aren’t uncommon today. He tries to complain about his circumstances. But his concerns are downplayed by a politician or racial justice activist, who instead points out that at least he’s doing better than black and brown folks if you look at broad socioeconomic measures.
"White privilege" is a way of sociologically explaining why white people do better in America than most other races without going all Bell Curve and saying "They are just better." It *isn't* a way of insulting white people who do less well than average. Some immature, young liberals might use it that way but they are *wrong.* That's not what it means.
Social justice activists are *rarely* saying "You may be homeless and starving but at least you are white and privileged!" They are saying "The reason why there are proportionately more homeless and hungry black people than white is white privilege."
Who are you explaining this to?
The thread, I guess. A lot of people here think it is a horrible thing that liberals say to make poor white people feel like shit. I was explaining what it actually meant.
That's the thing. It's such a toxic term, in no small part, because it is completely unhelpful. The only good that comes from it, is when a more progressive liberal, explains it to a slightly less progressive liberal. Joe center has never harassed a minority, hasn't denied one a job on the basis of their skin color, and would treat any that they met with respect. Joe Center might hold some prejudices that he should work on but isn't going to subscribe to collectivism. Telling him all about his white privilege, when he can't afford healthcare, college, or reasonable home ownership, is going to piss him off because he hasn't been handed anything. White privilege is how everyone should be treated, some people might not get that because, duh, they aren't white, and racism still exists, but that doesn't equate to Joe Center getting something extra. So talking about white privilege pisses off Joe Center who isn't our enemy anyway, and gives the alt right hard on's. It's just toxic.
Any criticism isn't really directed at you, just trying to show the issues with it.
Sure, but the key thing here is that for 99.9% of these people outraged by the term, no one is ever saying it to them.
Most people enraged by someone saying "check your privilege" have never had someone tell them to check their privilege. They don't swim the same social media circles add those who use those phrases
What actually happens is a piece of conservative media either finds something vaguely like it happening somewhere to someone else or makes a mountain of a molehill or finds I've of the dozens of people out there willing to make themselves a "martyr" (read - attention whore) over something someone said to them or just fabricates one from nothing and prints a story about it and sells it to their audience to get them riled up.
They aren't outraged that someone is saying it to them, they are outraged someone told them someone somewhere did it. It's the outrage porn market and it's a deep and profitable pit to mine.
See also all the people outraged that pastors are forced to marry gay people.
Hillary was not short on policy ideas, this wasn't an election that was won with facts and reasonable arguments, this was a gut feeling, racism, and enthusiasm election
This only makes sense to me from a "Trump is a huge narcissist" angle.
of states he won
I've been trying to make a joke of this, that me being in Wisconsin has suddenly made me a slightly higher class of citizen, but I... I don't think that's really a joke right now.
Please, can someone tell me I'm wrong? I'd really appreciate it.
You aren't wrong. If there's one thing fairly consistent about Trump, it's his attitude that gratitude and punishment be doled out to those that aided or opposed him.
Though obviously the gratitude is conditional at best and will disappear at a moment's notice.
+3
Options
GatorAn alligator in ScotlandRegistered Userregular
What's all this Canada shit. If they start internment camps, I hope every last one of you says, "fuck no," packs a sleeping bag and tent and goes to protest the shit out of it. Worst case scenario, there's not enough of us to stop it but everything is going to goddamn hell anyway. Best case scenario you stop it?
Don't talk a big game and then say you're going to go to fucking Canada if we start with these human rights abuses.
Hey spoiled guy
If a country goes full fascist the protesters aren't arrested
They're shot or tortured and their families are harassed and made to suffer permanent unemployment
Yeah. If you've got kids to protect, protect them. I don't think it's going to get that bad, but if it did I'd be putting myself ahead of people on the list to get shot by livestreaming myself being mowed down as a protester. Germany won't happen again as long as people move in large enough numbers to show what is happening. But I don't think things will push that far, as long as everyone keeps vocally pointing out where the lines are and where shit needs to be stopped. White nationalism is sticking its head out to see what it can get away with, and we need to snip it right the fuck off before it gets much further out.
Basically the reason I think Obama should die on the hill of his overtime changes is that they're expensive to implement and there's a lot of logistical rigamarole employers have to go through, and every major payroll processor is ready to switch over. If they're forced to switch over, many of them will just stick with the new hourly classification of their sub 47k employees even if they change back because it's a pain in the ass to do and they won't want to do it twice
hell some liberal states might even codify it into their own law
Republican leaders told rank and file members at this morning's conference meeting that they intend to use a somewhat obscure statute -- the Congressional Review Act -- to nullify some of the most recent Obama Administration regulations, according to multiple GOP sources -- including a rule expanding who qualifies for overtime pay.
Republicans could alter their short-term funding bill, dubbed the "CR" inside the Capitol, to wipe out Obama executive orders made this year. The maneuver would allow them to reach back in the year a limited amount of time -- 60 days on the legislative calendar, which is different than a regular calendar -- to wipe out the regulations.
But to do that, they'll have to pass the measure as soon as possible -- well before the end of this calendar year.
Ryan and other top House GOP leaders told members at Thursday's Republican conference meeting that they plan to hold a vote on a CR that would fund the government just through March 31, 2017.
That means Trump would be in office for only about two months when a fresh funding bill will need to be enacted -- to avoid a government shutdown -- allowing him to implement spending priorities and reforms he advocated while a candidate.
How do they expect to get something like that passed when Obama would have to sign it?
They're tying it to shutting down the government. I don't really see the advantage since Trump could reverse most of these decisions anyway...
The overtime stuff goes into effect Dec1, so it'll be in place for a short amount of time before they can swap it back. Businesses will have either hired more temp workers to avoid overtime, swapped people from salary to hourly, moved salaries outside the qualifying range, or just started actually paying overtime. Either way, suddenly reverting any of those things won't sit well with whomever it affects.
Basically boils down to "Well Trump supporters click on these stories and make me a ton of money so that's not my fault" and "Yeah I wrote these ridiculous stories, but I never expected Trump to win!" with a dash of "It's a prank, bro!"
Anywho, tried to sleep without a pill tonight and almost got there, but could for hours sleep, got up and mad at why I couldn't sleep, read some more political stuff. Went to bed and wound panic attacking twice, once when trying to sleep and once sometime after falling asleep. Waking up flipping the fuck out is not fun at all.
These new heartbeat in my clenched stomach panic attacks suck. I never thought I'd miss my old "I can't breath" panic attacks.
Anywho, after getting less than 3 hours of sleep, called my Rep and Senators. Felt good. Should I call my Governor as well?
Republican leaders told rank and file members at this morning's conference meeting that they intend to use a somewhat obscure statute -- the Congressional Review Act -- to nullify some of the most recent Obama Administration regulations, according to multiple GOP sources -- including a rule expanding who qualifies for overtime pay.
Republicans could alter their short-term funding bill, dubbed the "CR" inside the Capitol, to wipe out Obama executive orders made this year. The maneuver would allow them to reach back in the year a limited amount of time -- 60 days on the legislative calendar, which is different than a regular calendar -- to wipe out the regulations.
But to do that, they'll have to pass the measure as soon as possible -- well before the end of this calendar year.
Ryan and other top House GOP leaders told members at Thursday's Republican conference meeting that they plan to hold a vote on a CR that would fund the government just through March 31, 2017.
That means Trump would be in office for only about two months when a fresh funding bill will need to be enacted -- to avoid a government shutdown -- allowing him to implement spending priorities and reforms he advocated while a candidate.
How do they expect to get something like that passed when Obama would have to sign it?
They're tying it to shutting down the government. I don't really see the advantage since Trump could reverse most of these decisions anyway...
The overtime stuff goes into effect Dec1, so it'll be in place for a short amount of time before they can swap it back. Businesses will have either hired more temp workers to avoid overtime, swapped people from salary to hourly, moved salaries outside the qualifying range, or just started actually paying overtime. Either way, suddenly reverting any of those things won't sit well with whomever it affects.
There's a reason they're in such a hurry to kill it, even knowing that they can easily kill it at their leisure in 2 months - if they don't kill it now they might not be able to (or at least, not mitigate the effects on employers)
If we look back to the second debate, Bone stated in an interview that while he was "impressed" with Clinton, he was still more inclined to vote Trump. Considering that this was after a year of scandals in which Trump had been charged with with everything from racism to sexual assault, it's hard to imagine what could possibly sway a voter who's still convinced Trump could be a better president than Clinton. It leads one to conclude that either Bone found Clinton's scandals about emails and her foundation more concerning than Trump's controversial behavior, or he genuinely felt the Republican was a more capable candidate than the Democrat.
That Hillary could not, while on the podium, specify one thing she could do to demonstrate that Ken Bone specifically would not have financial problems as a result of energy policy seems to be like a smart self interested voter move on the part of Ken to get her to demonstrate how much she gives a shit about people who are going to be affected by energy transition- the horror story of manufacturing lingers like an implication as well, one that people didn't even see until after the election- the question of whether what happened to the factory workers will happen to others too.
And I support moving towards more clean renewable energy as quickly as we can. Because I think we can be the 21st century clean energy superpower and create millions of new jobs and businesses. But I want to be sure that we don't leave people behind. That’s why I'm the only candidate from the very beginning of this campaign who had a plan to help us revitalize coal country. Because those coal miners and their fathers and grandfathers, they dug that coal out, a lot of them lost their lives. They were injured. But they turn the lights on and powered our factories. I don't want to walk away from them. So we’ve got to do something for them. But the price of coal is down worldwide. We have to look at this comprehensively and that's what I have proposed. I hope you will go to hillaryclinton.com and read my entire policy.
The idea that Hillary Clinton was short on exact policy details and that's why she lost is just so ....
To Ken Bone's ears? Yes! Those are nationwide policy details. Ken Bone wanted policy details about how he wouldn't be needing economic relief, but would continue in his well paying job. Without retraining, without having to compete against millenials in a new industry.
She's talking about coal miners in the past tense while addressing a coal miner. She didn't know, but Ken Bone didn't want her to know- because her answer would speak volumes to people like him.
Energy transition is a real economic issue- the environment is absolutely the more important priority, but at the moment it's going to take a lot to convince people whose income is from coal that it's not a zero sum game manufacturing was to the rust belt.
I'm sure it's just a coincidence that people expressing certain concerns in MRA and Feminism and Gabble Gator threads are some of the same people expressing certain concerns in the election threads now.
This shit right here is some bullshit. If you have an argument, make it, don't do this smug "not naming names and I'm sure it's just a coincidence" garbage.
Basically boils down to "Well Trump supporters click on these stories and make me a ton of money so that's not my fault" and "Yeah I wrote these ridiculous stories, but I never expected Trump to win!" with a dash of "It's a prank, bro!"
Anywho, tried to sleep without a pill tonight and almost got there, but could for hours sleep, got up and mad at why I couldn't sleep, read some more political stuff. Went to bed and wound panic attacking twice, once when trying to sleep and once sometime after falling asleep. Waking up flipping the fuck out is not fun at all.
These new heartbeat in my clenched stomach panic attacks suck. I never thought I'd miss my old "I can't breath" panic attacks.
Anywho, after getting less than 3 hours of sleep, called my Rep and Senators. Felt good. Should I call my Governor as well?
Yup. This is just me, but when I have panic attacks, often they start because I feel helpless or useless. Calling the reps is something active, which makes me feel less helpless. If it works for you, do it.
FTC: honk.
FTC: HONK.
PAX Prime 2014 Resistance Tournament Winner
If we look back to the second debate, Bone stated in an interview that while he was "impressed" with Clinton, he was still more inclined to vote Trump. Considering that this was after a year of scandals in which Trump had been charged with with everything from racism to sexual assault, it's hard to imagine what could possibly sway a voter who's still convinced Trump could be a better president than Clinton. It leads one to conclude that either Bone found Clinton's scandals about emails and her foundation more concerning than Trump's controversial behavior, or he genuinely felt the Republican was a more capable candidate than the Democrat.
That Hillary could not, while on the podium, specify one thing she could do to demonstrate that Ken Bone specifically would not have financial problems as a result of energy policy seems to be like a smart self interested voter move on the part of Ken to get her to demonstrate how much she gives a shit about people who are going to be affected by energy transition- the horror story of manufacturing lingers like an implication as well, one that people didn't even see until after the election- the question of whether what happened to the factory workers will happen to others too.
And I support moving towards more clean renewable energy as quickly as we can. Because I think we can be the 21st century clean energy superpower and create millions of new jobs and businesses. But I want to be sure that we don't leave people behind. That’s why I'm the only candidate from the very beginning of this campaign who had a plan to help us revitalize coal country. Because those coal miners and their fathers and grandfathers, they dug that coal out, a lot of them lost their lives. They were injured. But they turn the lights on and powered our factories. I don't want to walk away from them. So we’ve got to do something for them. But the price of coal is down worldwide. We have to look at this comprehensively and that's what I have proposed. I hope you will go to hillaryclinton.com and read my entire policy.
The idea that Hillary Clinton was short on exact policy details and that's why she lost is just so ....
To Ken Bone's ears? Yes! Those are nationwide policy details. Ken Bone wanted policy details about how he wouldn't be needing economic relief, but would continue in his well paying job. Without retraining, without having to compete against millenials in a new industry.
She's talking about coal miners in the past tense while addressing a coal miner. She didn't know, but Ken Bone didn't want her to know- because her answer would speak volumes to people like him.
Energy transition is a real economic issue- the environment is absolutely the more important priority, but at the moment it's going to take a lot to convince people whose income is from coal that it's not a zero sum game manufacturing was to the rust belt.
yes we did not realize that Hillary should have just lied to folks like Ken Bone
it was our biggest failing, the not-lying thing
+30
Options
GatorAn alligator in ScotlandRegistered Userregular
All it will take is one assclown to pull off another Orlando shooting to set the dominoes falling. ISIS/ISIL/etc is well aware of this and will be trying for it.
At that point, getting the undesirables out of the country won't be the primary goal. Punishing them will be.
Honest question: What is ISIS's endgame? They have to know that if we collapse, we're most likely taking a huge chunk of the Middle East with us, right? Are they gunning for an apocalypse the way our Dominionists are?
Their endgame seems to be setting up a more militant reimagining of the Umayyad Empire. They try to achieve that goal by driving a wedge between Muslims and western civilization, leaving them with nowhere to go. Those who don't fall in line are then killed for being heretics.
Actually, if the Umayyad empire followed the prescriptions of Isis, they would have slaughtered every man woman and child in Egypt (as they were christians and thus according to Isis of the devil)
White Privilege is a thing that exist, but its also a thing that most people can't really see. Its like air, its there and its vital to your life, but you can't really point and say "there is the air I breath"(unless its cold).
So people benefiting from White Privilege can't really see it, as its more the absence of discrimination then actual privileges.
And for people saying check your privilege not really being a thing, its more of a thing especially online then you might think. As certain areas of the Internet are infested by right wing trolls, so are parts of the internet infested with hippy dippy hippies. Lets not pretend that they don't exists.
Cue people going: I never say that, I never hear that and Its much smaller then its claimed.
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
Like what politician says "Sure, downtrodden white person whose vote we 100% would kill to gain, but you're doing better than some black people so I don't care, allow me to proceed to insult you..."?
*No* politicians say that. It's a sociological term that has been taken to heart by earnest young kids online. So you hear it quite a lot from student types and *absolutely never* from professional politicians, because they are not stupid. Honestly, from the way right-wingers talk you'd think that it was every second word out of President Obama's mouth.
"Imagine, for example, a white man who lost a factory job due to globalization and saw his sister die from a drug overdose due to the opioid painkiller and heroin epidemic — situations that aren’t uncommon today. He tries to complain about his circumstances. But his concerns are downplayed by a politician or racial justice activist, who instead points out that at least he’s doing better than black and brown folks if you look at broad socioeconomic measures."
I'm legit having trouble imagining this.
Like what politician says "Sure, downtrodden white person whose vote we 100% would kill to gain, but you're doing better than some black people so I don't care, allow me to proceed to insult you..."?
The democrat says to that hypothetical man, we need to improve things for everyone and be an inclusive society for everyone regardless of their background. It's a platform and rhetoric that's not specifically tailored for people that live in towns with no minorities and don't plan on leaving.
Trump says hey, everyone's ignoring your dilapidated town. Their saying black lives matter, what about your life? Everyone forgot you, there's no infrastructure here since the 80s. you know what else has changed since the 80s? *dogwhistle*
Do they?
Which Democratic politician says that?
Like which Democratic politician has made this very strange and simple mistake of responding to voters asking for help by refusing to say anything about their jobs program or economic incentives or the ways they will specifically help this person and the town and the state and yea the very nation?
Because I mean if this is where we're at and the actual issue is that Democratic policymakers can't recall their own policy and repeat it back to folks when prompted we really don't have a lot of work to do.
Hillary talked about energy policies, told Ken Bone to look at her website, and paid lip service to coal miners and coal country of the past. But Ken Bone still works in coal. who was clearly concerned about energy policy affecting coal like the end of manufacturing, like how the end of mining in the UK has depressed towns to the extent that they still haven't recovered. Promising to "create new jobs and businesses" without specifying it somewhere other than a long article on your website is a horrible way to get people to believe you give a shit about them. Praising coal miners who kept the lights on in the past and not wanting to abandon them rings hollow- there are people who have been abandoned by the neoliberal economic system, and they're still abandoned.
Trump said Ken Bone could count on keeping his keep his coal job, and there would be even more jobs for Ken's friends and family. Trump knew what Ken and his ilk really wanted to hear.
on a more literal level, no democrat says anything at all to uneducated poor rural voters because they don't bother campaigning in places with cult like devotion to republicans.
Clinton gave a real policy answer (though whether the policy would even work is a whole other question), Trump gave a lie that sounded better basically.
A classic political issue.
Clinton didn't give a policy answer, Clinton gave eight sentences of nothing and then a URL. The quote is right there.
Trump's gonna end the war on coal (while expanding natural gas fracking, somehow), and Clinton is going to train all the coal miners on how to nail Chinese solar panels to each other's roofs. Both these plans are bullshit, but Clinton's was less inspiring somehow.
Terrorists don't seem to think like that for the most part. They tend to bomb fairly random places that have meaning only to their deranged minds.
I'm not a counter-terrorism expert, but I did sit through a 3 day course on the topic a few weeks ago.
This is absolutely and positively untrue.
Have to agree. Terrorists want to begat terror. They want splashy, loud and attention getting events that gets people scared. They want people to be worried to go to the Macy's Day Parade because of fear. It's a lot cheaper than a military invasion, and you don't even need troops.
FTC: honk.
FTC: HONK.
PAX Prime 2014 Resistance Tournament Winner
Terrorists don't seem to think like that for the most part. They tend to bomb fairly random places that have meaning only to their deranged minds.
I'm not a counter-terrorism expert, but I did sit through a 3 day course on the topic a few weeks ago.
This is absolutely and positively untrue.
Have to agree. Terrorists want to begat terror. They want splashy, loud and attention getting events that gets people scared. They want people to be worried to go to the Macy's Day Parade because of fear. It's a lot cheaper than a military invasion, and you don't even need troops.
It's asymmetrical warfare. Beyond creating fear, terrorists want to provoke a misguided reaction from the government. Like invading some place that had nothing to do with the attack. Or curtailing civil liberties to the point that the country is compromising its own principles.
Or, 'best' case scenario, starting a full fledged religious war. Which is why Obama refuses to scream "Islamic Terrorists!" after every attack and the people who criticize him for not doing so are complete and utter morons.
While terms like “racist,” “white privilege,” and “implicit bias” intend to point out systemic biases in America, for white Americans they’re often seen as coded slurs. These terms don’t signal to them that they’re doing something wrong, but that their supposedly racist attitudes (which they would deny having at all) are a justification for lawmakers and other elites to ignore their problems.
Imagine, for example, a white man who lost a factory job due to globalization and saw his sister die from a drug overdose due to the opioid painkiller and heroin epidemic — situations that aren’t uncommon today. He tries to complain about his circumstances. But his concerns are downplayed by a politician or racial justice activist, who instead points out that at least he’s doing better than black and brown folks if you look at broad socioeconomic measures.
"White privilege" is a way of sociologically explaining why white people do better in America than most other races without going all Bell Curve and saying "They are just better." It *isn't* a way of insulting white people who do less well than average. Some immature, young liberals might use it that way but they are *wrong.* That's not what it means.
Social justice activists are *rarely* saying "You may be homeless and starving but at least you are white and privileged!" They are saying "The reason why there are proportionately more homeless and hungry black people than white is white privilege."
Who are you explaining this to?
The thread, I guess. A lot of people here think it is a horrible thing that liberals say to make poor white people feel like shit. I was explaining what it actually meant.
That's the thing. It's such a toxic term, in no small part, because it is completely unhelpful. The only good that comes from it, is when a more progressive liberal, explains it to a slightly less progressive liberal. Joe center has never harassed a minority, hasn't denied one a job on the basis of their skin color, and would treat any that they met with respect. Joe Center might hold some prejudices that he should work on but isn't going to subscribe to collectivism. Telling him all about his white privilege, when he can't afford healthcare, college, or reasonable home ownership, is going to piss him off because he hasn't been handed anything. White privilege is how everyone should be treated, some people might not get that because, duh, they aren't white, and racism still exists, but that doesn't equate to Joe Center getting something extra. So talking about white privilege pisses off Joe Center who isn't our enemy anyway, and gives the alt right hard on's. It's just toxic.
Any criticism isn't really directed at you, just trying to show the issues with it.
Sure, but the key thing here is that for 99.9% of these people outraged by the term, no one is ever saying it to them.
Most people enraged by someone saying "check your privilege" have never had someone tell them to check their privilege. They don't swim in the same social media circles as those who use those phrases
What actually happens is a piece of conservative media either finds something vaguely like it happening somewhere to someone else or makes a mountain of a molehill or finds one of the dozens of people out there willing to make themselves a "martyr" (read - attention whore) over something someone said to them or just fabricates one from nothing and prints a story about it and sells it to their audience to get them riled up.
They aren't outraged that someone is saying it to them, they are outraged someone told them someone somewhere did it. It's the outrage porn market and it's a deep and profitable pit to mine.
Sometimes it isn't about how correct of an elitist goose you can be, but how not to alienate the people who can prevent Trump the sequel.
"Build infrastructure for the 21st century. The infrastructure in coal communities today was built to mine, ship, and burn coal. Unlocking new drivers of economic and employment growth in these communities will require new infrastructure that connects workers to new jobs and companies to new markets. Clinton’s infrastructure investment program will include a focus on economic diversification and revitalization in coal communities, building new roads, bridges, water systems, airports and transmission lines, including completion of the Appalachian Development Highway System. She will also work with the Department of Transportation and the railroad companies to develop a strategy for leveraging available rail capacity previously used to ship coal to support broader economic development in coal-producing regions."
"Attract private investment through an improved New Markets Tax Credit and zero capital gains taxes. Complementing the public investments in infrastructure, land, energy, and innovation described above, Clinton will attract new private investment by extending and expanding the New Markets Tax Credit (NMTC) program so all communities suffering from a decline in coal production or a coal plant closure qualify. The NMTC program has steered billions in investment to low income neighborhoods since it began in 2000. Clinton will also offer companies a chance to eliminate capital gains taxes on long-term investments in hard-hit coal communities."
which is what her website says. but she's not great at communicating her ideas. like not at all. and also, people want to hear that they can just keep their jobs.
While terms like “racist,” “white privilege,” and “implicit bias” intend to point out systemic biases in America, for white Americans they’re often seen as coded slurs. These terms don’t signal to them that they’re doing something wrong, but that their supposedly racist attitudes (which they would deny having at all) are a justification for lawmakers and other elites to ignore their problems.
Imagine, for example, a white man who lost a factory job due to globalization and saw his sister die from a drug overdose due to the opioid painkiller and heroin epidemic — situations that aren’t uncommon today. He tries to complain about his circumstances. But his concerns are downplayed by a politician or racial justice activist, who instead points out that at least he’s doing better than black and brown folks if you look at broad socioeconomic measures.
"White privilege" is a way of sociologically explaining why white people do better in America than most other races without going all Bell Curve and saying "They are just better." It *isn't* a way of insulting white people who do less well than average. Some immature, young liberals might use it that way but they are *wrong.* That's not what it means.
Social justice activists are *rarely* saying "You may be homeless and starving but at least you are white and privileged!" They are saying "The reason why there are proportionately more homeless and hungry black people than white is white privilege."
Who are you explaining this to?
The thread, I guess. A lot of people here think it is a horrible thing that liberals say to make poor white people feel like shit. I was explaining what it actually meant.
That's the thing. It's such a toxic term, in no small part, because it is completely unhelpful. The only good that comes from it, is when a more progressive liberal, explains it to a slightly less progressive liberal. Joe center has never harassed a minority, hasn't denied one a job on the basis of their skin color, and would treat any that they met with respect. Joe Center might hold some prejudices that he should work on but isn't going to subscribe to collectivism. Telling him all about his white privilege, when he can't afford healthcare, college, or reasonable home ownership, is going to piss him off because he hasn't been handed anything. White privilege is how everyone should be treated, some people might not get that because, duh, they aren't white, and racism still exists, but that doesn't equate to Joe Center getting something extra. So talking about white privilege pisses off Joe Center who isn't our enemy anyway, and gives the alt right hard on's. It's just toxic.
Any criticism isn't really directed at you, just trying to show the issues with it.
Sure, but the key thing here is that for 99.9% of these people outraged by the term, no one is ever saying it to them.
Most people enraged by someone saying "check your privilege" have never had someone tell them to check their privilege. They don't swim in the same social media circles as those who use those phrases
What actually happens is a piece of conservative media either finds something vaguely like it happening somewhere to someone else or makes a mountain of a molehill or finds one of the dozens of people out there willing to make themselves a "martyr" (read - attention whore) over something someone said to them or just fabricates one from nothing and prints a story about it and sells it to their audience to get them riled up.
They aren't outraged that someone is saying it to them, they are outraged someone told them someone somewhere did it. It's the outrage porn market and it's a deep and profitable pit to mine.
Sometimes it isn't about how correct of an elitist goose you can be, but how not to alienate the people who can prevent Trump the sequel.
Except it's about either here. Here, this issue, is about how money can be made off selling stories of how outrageous them kids and liberals are being today. This shit has been going on for decades and longer. Only the thing that outrages you enough to open your wallet changes.
I know my mom basically swamps all her Republican representatives with how she loves them but Trump scares her and I love her for it (she actually voted Hillary and she campaigned vigorously for her)
edit: need to repeat this because we should never stop repeating it, Trump got less votes, we can't let him forget it, or the representatives, or anyone, remind them of that and the fact that there's another election in 4 years
You are wrong, there is another election in 2 years.
You know what I mean, we gotta fight for that election but Trump is president until 2020
I made it through that without vomiting, excellent
If we win the election in 2018, then Trump is effectively no longer in charge of anything. He serves at our tolerance. We must show that we will no longer approve of his absurdity in 2018.
Hell, there are major governors up for election in 2017. There's a runoff election next week. Act, Donate, Speak.
I thought most of the seats up in 2018 were already held by Democrats. I didn't think we could take control of either house in even a best-case scenario.
Well, all House seats are up every two years, while only a third of Senate seats are up at the time. (Dem senate seats in 2018 will be following from the 2012 election, where we actually picked up a few seats).
For the house:
2006: We picked up 31 seats
2008: We picked up 21 seats
2010: We lost 63 seats (Fuck 2010)
2012: We picked up 8 seats
2014: We picked lost 13 seats
2016: We picked up 6 seats.
Right now we have 193 seats (with four seats not yet called). We need 218 to take the house, so that's roughly 21-25 seats we'd need. Not completely impossible.
The senate is much harder, because 2018 is running off the 2006/2012 map, where we took took 5(+1 independant) seats without losing any in 2006 and then took a net of 3 seats (3 gains, one loss) in 2012. There's 8 out of 33 pub seats left, and we'd need 2-3 seats to take control (depending on how Louisiana goes) and these are seats that (mostly) withstood the 2006 backlash and the 2012 boost by Obama. We're actually at more risk of LOSING seats here, to tell the truth. 2020 is where the real fight is, as this is the follow-up to the 2014 shellacking
Ultimately it'll likely depend on what the attitude in America is at that point: will Trump or the Republicans fuck them over yet, how is the economy, etc. etc.
2020 will be where the rubber meats the road, as that is following from 2014 and is a ripely red as 2018 will be blue.
"Build infrastructure for the 21st century. The infrastructure in coal communities today was built to mine, ship, and burn coal. Unlocking new drivers of economic and employment growth in these communities will require new infrastructure that connects workers to new jobs and companies to new markets. Clinton’s infrastructure investment program will include a focus on economic diversification and revitalization in coal communities, building new roads, bridges, water systems, airports and transmission lines, including completion of the Appalachian Development Highway System. She will also work with the Department of Transportation and the railroad companies to develop a strategy for leveraging available rail capacity previously used to ship coal to support broader economic development in coal-producing regions."
"Attract private investment through an improved New Markets Tax Credit and zero capital gains taxes. Complementing the public investments in infrastructure, land, energy, and innovation described above, Clinton will attract new private investment by extending and expanding the New Markets Tax Credit (NMTC) program so all communities suffering from a decline in coal production or a coal plant closure qualify. The NMTC program has steered billions in investment to low income neighborhoods since it began in 2000. Clinton will also offer companies a chance to eliminate capital gains taxes on long-term investments in hard-hit coal communities."
which is what her website says. but she's not great at communicating her ideas. like not at all. and also, people want to hear that they can just keep their jobs.
It's almost like the only winning move for these voters is to lie to them. If the choice is between "Here are the changes we are proposing to help you" vs "Hey, you don't have to change at all", the latter will always win. Doesn't matter that it's a lie; people hate and fear change.
So, the real question is, how do we convince these people that change is necessary and inevitable?
Terrorists don't seem to think like that for the most part. They tend to bomb fairly random places that have meaning only to their deranged minds.
I'm not a counter-terrorism expert, but I did sit through a 3 day course on the topic a few weeks ago.
This is absolutely and positively untrue.
Have to agree. Terrorists want to begat terror. They want splashy, loud and attention getting events that gets people scared. They want people to be worried to go to the Macy's Day Parade because of fear. It's a lot cheaper than a military invasion, and you don't even need troops.
It's asymmetrical warfare. Beyond creating fear, terrorists want to provoke a misguided reaction from the government. Like invading some place that had nothing to do with the attack. Or curtailing civil liberties to the point that the country is compromising its own principles.
Or, 'best' case scenario, starting a full fledged religious war. Which is why Obama refuses to scream "Islamic Terrorists!" after every attack and the people who criticize him for not doing so are complete and utter morons.
While this is definitely true of 70s to 90s terror, post September 11 Islamic terror also has a dimension of cosmic performance, or theological staging. Ie, striking terror into the hearts of the enemy to cause an overreaction is still important, but also performing acts on a "cosmic" stage for the benefit of god is also Important. It changes from instance to instance, group to group, and individual to individual of course
Often this sense of cosmic staging is more important a motivator for the individual committing the act, particularly with lone wolf attacks motivated by almost doninionist style propaganda and beliefs (ISIS promotes the idea that they will trigger the apocalypse themselves within our lifetimes)
Ultimately it's a messy web that nobody will look at because most conservative and many left leaning Americans still somehow believe ISIS is personally sending fighters into America to attack its citizens via Mexico or some nonsense
Prohass on
0
Options
HakkekageSpace Whore Academysumma cum laudeRegistered Userregular
"Build infrastructure for the 21st century. The infrastructure in coal communities today was built to mine, ship, and burn coal. Unlocking new drivers of economic and employment growth in these communities will require new infrastructure that connects workers to new jobs and companies to new markets. Clinton’s infrastructure investment program will include a focus on economic diversification and revitalization in coal communities, building new roads, bridges, water systems, airports and transmission lines, including completion of the Appalachian Development Highway System. She will also work with the Department of Transportation and the railroad companies to develop a strategy for leveraging available rail capacity previously used to ship coal to support broader economic development in coal-producing regions."
"Attract private investment through an improved New Markets Tax Credit and zero capital gains taxes. Complementing the public investments in infrastructure, land, energy, and innovation described above, Clinton will attract new private investment by extending and expanding the New Markets Tax Credit (NMTC) program so all communities suffering from a decline in coal production or a coal plant closure qualify. The NMTC program has steered billions in investment to low income neighborhoods since it began in 2000. Clinton will also offer companies a chance to eliminate capital gains taxes on long-term investments in hard-hit coal communities."
which is what her website says. but she's not great at communicating her ideas. like not at all. and also, people want to hear that they can just keep their jobs.
It's almost like the only winning move for these voters is to lie to them. If the choice is between "Here are the changes we are proposing to help you" vs "Hey, you don't have to change at all", the latter will always win. Doesn't matter that it's a lie; people hate and fear change.
So, the real question is, how do we convince these people that change is necessary and inevitable?
According to all these liberal medias I'm reading, they WANT change. Not in their personal lives, but like. C H A N G E. Big change. I remember hearing a lot about making America great again or something? Can't be sure. They sure want to change it, though.
What they want, though, is for other people to bear the cost of that change
White Privilege is a thing that exist, but its also a thing that most people can't really see. Its like air, its there and its vital to your life, but you can't really point and say "there is the air I breath"(unless its cold).
So people benefiting from White Privilege can't really see it, as its more the absence of discrimination then actual privileges.
And for people saying check your privilege not really being a thing, its more of a thing especially online then you might think. As certain areas of the Internet are infested by right wing trolls, so are parts of the internet infested with hippy dippy hippies. Lets not pretend that they don't exists.
Cue people going: I never say that, I never hear that and Its much smaller then its claimed.
I use check your privilege all the fucking time, but I don't use those exact words. I'll call it out whenever I see it, but I don't say check your privilege (well, there was that one time...) and instead I explain why their thoughts and actions are privileged when compared to the minority they are talking about. If it's not pointed out, it can not be addressed.
And you abso-fucking-lutely want your pre-k through 12 grade teachers to get training on tackling implicit bias, white privilege, etc. A single teacher can literally turn a promising students life upside down because they thought white Jimmy's actions was a boy being a boy while black Jimmy's were signs of criminality.
We've ran out of directions to look away now. We used to think people meant well and were maybe misinformed, but this whole thing, the fascist re-taking of power for corporate overlords, dividing and conquering us all to get richer and richer...
Posts
I've been trying to make a joke of this, that me being in Wisconsin has suddenly made me a slightly higher class of citizen, but I... I don't think that's really a joke right now.
Please, can someone tell me I'm wrong? I'd really appreciate it.
We're in the wrong part of Wisconsin for him so I'm not sure that we really count.
They're tying it to shutting down the government. I don't really see the advantage since Trump could reverse most of these decisions anyway...
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
cultivating his base. it has its purposes. everything he does is because he's a narcissist though. he has a gold toilet.
That Hillary could not, while on the podium, specify one thing she could do to demonstrate that Ken Bone specifically would not have financial problems as a result of energy policy makes it seem like Ken voted Trump. the way he posed his question makes him out to be like a smart self interested voter move to get her to demonstrate her priorities, how much she gives a shit about people who are going to be economically affected by energy transition- the horror story of manufacturing lingers like an implication as well, one that people didn't even see until after the election- the question of whether what happened to the factory workers will happen to others too. Nobody prioritized that. It was on no one's radar. Trump made it his priority to exploit that.
Maybe he voted Hillary, but I doubt it.
Because employers have been preparing for the payroll change, and if it stays in place they'll hedge their bets and switch exempt employees making less than 47k to hourly
once the switch happens, it's unlikely it'll be switched back quickly
Trump finally has officials?
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
The idea that Hillary Clinton was short on exact policy details and that's why she lost is just so ....
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Clinton gave a real policy answer (though whether the policy would even work is a whole other question), Trump gave a lie that sounded better basically.
A classic political issue.
I'm sure it's just a coincidence that people expressing certain concerns in MRA and Feminism and Gabble Gator threads are some of the same people expressing certain concerns in the election threads now.
Hopefully people don't fall for that brand of hand-wringing any more now than we have in the past.
Sure, but the key thing here is that for 99.9% of these people outraged by the term, no one is ever saying it to them.
Most people enraged by someone saying "check your privilege" have never had someone tell them to check their privilege. They don't swim in the same social media circles as those who use those phrases
What actually happens is a piece of conservative media either finds something vaguely like it happening somewhere to someone else or makes a mountain of a molehill or finds one of the dozens of people out there willing to make themselves a "martyr" (read - attention whore) over something someone said to them or just fabricates one from nothing and prints a story about it and sells it to their audience to get them riled up.
They aren't outraged that someone is saying it to them, they are outraged someone told them someone somewhere did it. It's the outrage porn market and it's a deep and profitable pit to mine.
See also all the people outraged that pastors are forced to marry gay people.
You aren't wrong. If there's one thing fairly consistent about Trump, it's his attitude that gratitude and punishment be doled out to those that aided or opposed him.
Though obviously the gratitude is conditional at best and will disappear at a moment's notice.
The rallies aren't going to stop
hell some liberal states might even codify it into their own law
The overtime stuff goes into effect Dec1, so it'll be in place for a short amount of time before they can swap it back. Businesses will have either hired more temp workers to avoid overtime, swapped people from salary to hourly, moved salaries outside the qualifying range, or just started actually paying overtime. Either way, suddenly reverting any of those things won't sit well with whomever it affects.
I'm hoping he's just desperately trying (and failing) avoid feeling guilty.
Anywho, tried to sleep without a pill tonight and almost got there, but could for hours sleep, got up and mad at why I couldn't sleep, read some more political stuff. Went to bed and wound panic attacking twice, once when trying to sleep and once sometime after falling asleep. Waking up flipping the fuck out is not fun at all.
These new heartbeat in my clenched stomach panic attacks suck. I never thought I'd miss my old "I can't breath" panic attacks.
Anywho, after getting less than 3 hours of sleep, called my Rep and Senators. Felt good. Should I call my Governor as well?
There's a reason they're in such a hurry to kill it, even knowing that they can easily kill it at their leisure in 2 months - if they don't kill it now they might not be able to (or at least, not mitigate the effects on employers)
To Ken Bone's ears? Yes! Those are nationwide policy details. Ken Bone wanted policy details about how he wouldn't be needing economic relief, but would continue in his well paying job. Without retraining, without having to compete against millenials in a new industry.
She's talking about coal miners in the past tense while addressing a coal miner. She didn't know, but Ken Bone didn't want her to know- because her answer would speak volumes to people like him.
Energy transition is a real economic issue- the environment is absolutely the more important priority, but at the moment it's going to take a lot to convince people whose income is from coal that it's not a zero sum game manufacturing was to the rust belt.
This shit right here is some bullshit. If you have an argument, make it, don't do this smug "not naming names and I'm sure it's just a coincidence" garbage.
Yup. This is just me, but when I have panic attacks, often they start because I feel helpless or useless. Calling the reps is something active, which makes me feel less helpless. If it works for you, do it.
FTC: HONK.
PAX Prime 2014 Resistance Tournament Winner
yes we did not realize that Hillary should have just lied to folks like Ken Bone
it was our biggest failing, the not-lying thing
Actually, if the Umayyad empire followed the prescriptions of Isis, they would have slaughtered every man woman and child in Egypt (as they were christians and thus according to Isis of the devil)
I'm not a counter-terrorism expert, but I did sit through a 3 day course on the topic a few weeks ago.
This is absolutely and positively untrue.
I'd go into (slightly) more detail, but I've gotta run.
So people benefiting from White Privilege can't really see it, as its more the absence of discrimination then actual privileges.
And for people saying check your privilege not really being a thing, its more of a thing especially online then you might think. As certain areas of the Internet are infested by right wing trolls, so are parts of the internet infested with hippy dippy hippies. Lets not pretend that they don't exists.
Cue people going: I never say that, I never hear that and Its much smaller then its claimed.
Clinton didn't give a policy answer, Clinton gave eight sentences of nothing and then a URL. The quote is right there.
Trump's gonna end the war on coal (while expanding natural gas fracking, somehow), and Clinton is going to train all the coal miners on how to nail Chinese solar panels to each other's roofs. Both these plans are bullshit, but Clinton's was less inspiring somehow.
Have to agree. Terrorists want to begat terror. They want splashy, loud and attention getting events that gets people scared. They want people to be worried to go to the Macy's Day Parade because of fear. It's a lot cheaper than a military invasion, and you don't even need troops.
FTC: HONK.
PAX Prime 2014 Resistance Tournament Winner
It's asymmetrical warfare. Beyond creating fear, terrorists want to provoke a misguided reaction from the government. Like invading some place that had nothing to do with the attack. Or curtailing civil liberties to the point that the country is compromising its own principles.
Or, 'best' case scenario, starting a full fledged religious war. Which is why Obama refuses to scream "Islamic Terrorists!" after every attack and the people who criticize him for not doing so are complete and utter morons.
Sometimes it isn't about how correct of an elitist goose you can be, but how not to alienate the people who can prevent Trump the sequel.
or she could have said:
"Build infrastructure for the 21st century. The infrastructure in coal communities today was built to mine, ship, and burn coal. Unlocking new drivers of economic and employment growth in these communities will require new infrastructure that connects workers to new jobs and companies to new markets. Clinton’s infrastructure investment program will include a focus on economic diversification and revitalization in coal communities, building new roads, bridges, water systems, airports and transmission lines, including completion of the Appalachian Development Highway System. She will also work with the Department of Transportation and the railroad companies to develop a strategy for leveraging available rail capacity previously used to ship coal to support broader economic development in coal-producing regions."
"Attract private investment through an improved New Markets Tax Credit and zero capital gains taxes. Complementing the public investments in infrastructure, land, energy, and innovation described above, Clinton will attract new private investment by extending and expanding the New Markets Tax Credit (NMTC) program so all communities suffering from a decline in coal production or a coal plant closure qualify. The NMTC program has steered billions in investment to low income neighborhoods since it began in 2000. Clinton will also offer companies a chance to eliminate capital gains taxes on long-term investments in hard-hit coal communities."
which is what her website says. but she's not great at communicating her ideas. like not at all. and also, people want to hear that they can just keep their jobs.
Except it's about either here. Here, this issue, is about how money can be made off selling stories of how outrageous them kids and liberals are being today. This shit has been going on for decades and longer. Only the thing that outrages you enough to open your wallet changes.
Well, all House seats are up every two years, while only a third of Senate seats are up at the time. (Dem senate seats in 2018 will be following from the 2012 election, where we actually picked up a few seats).
For the house:
2006: We picked up 31 seats
2008: We picked up 21 seats
2010: We lost 63 seats (Fuck 2010)
2012: We picked up 8 seats
2014: We picked lost 13 seats
2016: We picked up 6 seats.
Right now we have 193 seats (with four seats not yet called). We need 218 to take the house, so that's roughly 21-25 seats we'd need. Not completely impossible.
The senate is much harder, because 2018 is running off the 2006/2012 map, where we took took 5(+1 independant) seats without losing any in 2006 and then took a net of 3 seats (3 gains, one loss) in 2012. There's 8 out of 33 pub seats left, and we'd need 2-3 seats to take control (depending on how Louisiana goes) and these are seats that (mostly) withstood the 2006 backlash and the 2012 boost by Obama. We're actually at more risk of LOSING seats here, to tell the truth. 2020 is where the real fight is, as this is the follow-up to the 2014 shellacking
Ultimately it'll likely depend on what the attitude in America is at that point: will Trump or the Republicans fuck them over yet, how is the economy, etc. etc.
2020 will be where the rubber meats the road, as that is following from 2014 and is a ripely red as 2018 will be blue.
It's almost like the only winning move for these voters is to lie to them. If the choice is between "Here are the changes we are proposing to help you" vs "Hey, you don't have to change at all", the latter will always win. Doesn't matter that it's a lie; people hate and fear change.
So, the real question is, how do we convince these people that change is necessary and inevitable?
While this is definitely true of 70s to 90s terror, post September 11 Islamic terror also has a dimension of cosmic performance, or theological staging. Ie, striking terror into the hearts of the enemy to cause an overreaction is still important, but also performing acts on a "cosmic" stage for the benefit of god is also Important. It changes from instance to instance, group to group, and individual to individual of course
Often this sense of cosmic staging is more important a motivator for the individual committing the act, particularly with lone wolf attacks motivated by almost doninionist style propaganda and beliefs (ISIS promotes the idea that they will trigger the apocalypse themselves within our lifetimes)
Ultimately it's a messy web that nobody will look at because most conservative and many left leaning Americans still somehow believe ISIS is personally sending fighters into America to attack its citizens via Mexico or some nonsense
According to all these liberal medias I'm reading, they WANT change. Not in their personal lives, but like. C H A N G E. Big change. I remember hearing a lot about making America great again or something? Can't be sure. They sure want to change it, though.
What they want, though, is for other people to bear the cost of that change
NNID: Hakkekage
I use check your privilege all the fucking time, but I don't use those exact words. I'll call it out whenever I see it, but I don't say check your privilege (well, there was that one time...) and instead I explain why their thoughts and actions are privileged when compared to the minority they are talking about. If it's not pointed out, it can not be addressed.
And you abso-fucking-lutely want your pre-k through 12 grade teachers to get training on tackling implicit bias, white privilege, etc. A single teacher can literally turn a promising students life upside down because they thought white Jimmy's actions was a boy being a boy while black Jimmy's were signs of criminality.
Fuck man. It really is a dystopia we're living in