But Seriously...

OK. Here is another one. It's not like these are the only ones. The author of this one is a pretty well-known and smart dude. In fact, I don't think it's a stretch to call him smarter than Bernie Sanders; and his take is that Bernie is way off with his platform.

http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...m_campaign=Saturday+Best+of+6/4&utm_term=VDHM

 

Actually, he's an idiot. He doesn't address Canada, the EU, or any of the nations much more in line with the policies Sanders is suggesting, instead going off about Venezuela, one of the most corrupt crime ridden countries on the planet. Funny enough, his example is still pretty bad as it also ignores that Venezuela is actually one of the wealthiest countries in the region. He's also one of the morons who doesn't understand the difference between an expansion of social welfare programs and communism, which pretty much completely discredits him.

If he thinks the Socialist policies Sanders has pushed have more in common with North Korea than say, Norway, there's not much of a point in taking his 'fact checking' seriously. Of course, the 'many capitalist countries' he references are actually the kind of socialists he's railing against the entire article. I mean, damn.

There's also no consistent data to back up his claims about minimum wage increases causing massive unemployment. The data isn't on his side even a little bit, so he boxed off a minority that represented less than 10% of the population at the time and then compared the booming economy of the late 1940s and the recession of the early 1970s to 'prove' unemployment was higher. Because of the minimum wage hike over that time period. For black males. Yeah. Most incredible of all, the age range he was accounting for was snipped off at 16-17. That's so ridiculous I almost felt bad for him.

That was some shameless partisan hack shit. I see the author has some decent credentials. That's nice, but Ted Cruz went to Princeton and Harvard too. If you think that author is really smart and has important things to say about the direction this country needs to take then I'm sincerely sorry to hear it.

And dude, didn't you notice his right media tard tone of 'LOL liberals don't like facts in their fairyland!!!' The guy seems like a Rush Limbaugh who writes instead of yelling into a mic. He even finished the article by blaming universities for making kids dumber. Guy is a walking cliche. I think that's the last article like that I'm going to respond to, it's kind of a waste of time to tear down arguments from complete jackasses.

 

Nonsense. I'm here to defend the leash!

My 2 yr old is quick, curious and doesn't give a Gerbil's ass what is going on in his surroundings when he sees something that interests him.

I agree with you that a "leash law" is stupid. But, if my son and I are going to a potentially dangerous public place, limiting his mobility is a good idea. I limit his mobility, I don't strap him down.

When my brother had his first kid, I bought them a little monkey backpack with a leash. I thought it would be funny. They used the shit out of it. When I had my son, I got it back from him.

It is my opinion that strollers are being used way too much and for way too long. I see some old kids being pushed around, but their kids are reasonably safe in them, and that's what really matters. I wouldn't call it abusive. I think when a kid can walk, let them walk.

 

I'm in agreement here. Mostly I'll let my kids walk, BabyGroot isn't old enough to do that yet, so I wear him.
When he's old enough to self transport? Turtle backpack with a tether. Not anything crazy, just something that gives him some independence without total free wheeling.


Laws for it are dumb tho.

 

ISIS planning to launch attacks on the 2016 Euro cup.

It's kind of surprising that ISIS has focused so much more on attacking European venues rather than the United States, but I suppose it makes sense given the logistical difficulties and the fact that Europe has a much more radicalized Muslim base to exploit. France is still in a state of emergency that is basically martial law lite. Given the number of soldiers in the area they'll likely try to go with sneaking in bombs rather than bursting in with assault rifles.

But they're crazy, and you never know what crazy people are going to do. If these attacks are carried out and achieve a substantial level of success we're likely to see a NATO invasion of Syria.

With regards to the 2012 Olympics:

Talk about playing into the terrorist's hands. These attacks make me sick, and I want to see them stopped, but I also don't like the idea of people being locked up for minuscule infractions in the name of safety.

 

So, what are the chances that Judge Persky is going to be recalled on the basis of the Stanford rape case sentencing?

 

None. He might get a stern talking to. Ultimately it is his discretion to carry out a sentence. Do they vote on judges? He might get voted out, but I doubt it. Nobody pays attention to that stuff here, at least. We can't even get people to vote on mayors.

Persky has retained legal counsel, which is peculiar. Don't ask me to dig up the article again, but it stated the lawyer claimed Persky is one of the more fair judges on the bench. Whatever. The guy is clueless and expecting some serious blowback from the public. Rightly so. Funny thing is, if Brock was black he'd be rotting in his cell for years.

Here is a story of a kid falsely accused of rape who spent 5 years in the clink. Oh yeah he is black: http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/f...sgusted-brock-turner-ruling-article-1.2663595

 

Just to be clear, you guys do know he wasn't convicted of rape, right? And no, I don't agree with the ruling either.

 

Yep. Felony sexual assault. Tomato, tomahto. Yet another issue plaguing rape cases is antiquated language in the laws. Remember kids, you can do all sorts of horrible things to a woman including fucking her with objects, but it's not rape unless you use your dick. Because a rape victim still has to qualify her distress properly.

 

It is a pretty senseless distinction. So if I cram a glass jar up a woman's vagina is that not rape because it's a 'foreign object'? Any manner of the crime is pretty bad, but I'm not sure how doing some Ted Bundy level of weird fuckery is a separate crime.

My best guess is the father bought off the judge. Given that it was a high profile case he couldn't get him completely off the hook, but he's only going to end up serving three months. I have a friend that got arrested in California with a shit load of drugs and after spreading some money around to the right people (including the judge) he ended up not getting sentenced to any jail time. He doesn't deal anymore, but the ease with which he did that was pretty amazing.

 

It begins. Lindsey Graham had some shit to say earlier too. And when you start agreeing with Lindsey Graham, wtf.

Iowa Senator David Johnson leaves Republican party.

There is a lot, A LOT, of Trump rhetoric in the news today.

 

The victim's testimony from the Stanford story is long, but the middle part makes a very compelling case that this country needs to rethink how it prosecutes rape/sexual assault cases.

Included in it is a list of some of the irrelevant questions she was asked.

Spoiler

How old are you? How much do you weigh? What did you eat that day? Well what did you have for dinner? Who made dinner? Did you drink with dinner? No, not even water? When did you drink? How much did you drink? What container did you drink out of? Who gave you the drink? How much do you usually drink? Who dropped you off at this party? At what time? But where exactly? What were you wearing? Why were you going to this party? What’ d you do when you got there? Are you sure you did that? But what time did you do that? What does this text mean? Who were you texting? When did you urinate? Where did you urinate? With whom did you urinate outside? Was your phone on silent when your sister called? Do you remember silencing it? Really because on page 53 I’d like to point out that you said it was set to ring. Did you drink in college? You said you were a party animal? How many times did you black out? Did you party at frats? Are you serious with your boyfriend? Are you sexually active with him? When did you start dating? Would you ever cheat? Do you have a history of cheating? What do you mean when you said you wanted to reward him? Do you remember what time you woke up? Were you wearing your cardigan? What color was your cardigan? Do you remember any more from that night? No? Okay, well, we’ll let Brock fill it in.

Lawyers understand the fallibility of human memory quite well. The general public does not, and given that these sorts of lines of questions are permissible in court I don't think our politicians do either. Anyone who is forced to answer these questions indefinitely will inevitably draw contradictions, especially a year or more after the event in question. Even more fucked up is questions like "Would you ever cheat?" followed by "Oh, well I have this e-mail you sent Sarah. You're talking about how Brad is so attractive. Pretty graphic descriptions in there, huh? You sure you would never cheat?"

The other part is it's just really wrong to drag out a trial so long, and to keep a victim of sexual abuse on the stand that long. I have no doubt both of these contribute to why rape is such an under reported crime. If people were talking more about what constitutes reasonable relevance in sexual assault cases instead of whether we should blindly believe or condemn accusers maybe we'd be getting somewhere.

 

This all began with a statement that there are not enough explanations for how Bernie Sanders doesn't understand economics and unfortunately, I think this will expand the discussion a bit beyond that.

He's far more educated that you, I or Bernie. Senior Fellow at Stanford...graduated from Harvard, Masters at Columbia and did his Doctorate at University of Chicago. Also served in the Marines during Korea for good measure. We can compare Bernie Sanders past but as you are surely aware, his past is a topic he refuses to discuss. Which I might add now that I have time and didn't when people were discussing who would win a straight up Trump/Sanders debate in this thread. My first move would be to roll Bernie's past out and have him account for it: A man who would still be a starving writer, potentially even still writing articles about masturbation today if not for the dupes in Burlington, VT. Additionally, god forbid, he would have to explain his time at Kibbutz Sha’ar Ha’amakim in Israel and why during the height of the cold war he is over there hanging out at a marxist/communist commune. Or the fact that he took his wife on their honeymoon to Soviet-era Russia amongst other questionable behaviors that at the time would have labeled him as a subversive by the US GOV.

Bernie Sanders is closely linked to South American Marxist Government. That is why the distinction was made in this article; Managua was a sister city of Burlington during the Sandinista period and Bernie had high praise for Ortega, whom was the Sandinista leader. Directly to your point about other industrialized nations with a heavier version of Socialism than America has currently: https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2015/10/15/bernie-sanders-scandinavia-not-socialist-utopia/lUk9N7dZotJRbvn8PosoIN/story.html It appears that opinions differ as to the genesis of the prosperity in these countries. Additionally, it appears that there are now concerns as to how viable the system will be moving forward: http://www.economist.com/news/busin...-rediscover-its-viking-spirit-norwegian-blues

In terms of his interpretation of socialism and communism, they are related, though not the same. If you view economic systems on a continuum where capitalism and communism are on either end and socialism is the middle ground. I think his point is that Bernie Sanders is pushing us further in the direction of communism on that continuum.

I'm struggling here; where was North Korea mentioned? Sanders, based on quotes from articles, is far closer to a Marxist in ideology than he is a "I'm just here to expand social programs kind of guy." He refers to himself as Democratic Socialist in America purely out of convenience. Sanders is a guy who attended Sandinista rallies and set up a sister city agreement with a Soviet-era city while in Vermont. The fact that he pushes Democratic Socialism on the campaign trail now doesn't change who he actually is. https://www.intellihub.com/bernie-sanders-plan-confiscate-entire-rockefeller-family-fortune-1974/ Disregard the site, look at the newspaper clipping and what Sanders actually says. Nationalizing entire industries is far beyond the whole okie doke bullshit he is trying to dupe everyone into believing today that he is only interested in expanding welfare systems.

So, at the end of the day, how does this correlate to him not understanding economics? He believes that our Government is capable of centrally planning large swaths of society. That economic model doesn't work, history shows us it doesn't work. It doesn't get any more basic than that.

 

I'm sorry, I used the wrong term. I meant executive experience, being the person at the top who is ultimately responsible. Many would stretch Secretary of State to be included in that category, but there is certainly valid debate over Mrs. Clinton's success in that role. Governors have traditionally been considered to have had that type of experience, and Trump is the only candidate left who has that. I don't mean to say that Trump is the best candidate based on that; I'm just trying to keep the discussion honest.

See, it always plays out like this every four years. People figure out whom they support and point to their candidate's strengths while ignoring their weaknesses. They then magnify the opponent's weaknesses while ignoring their strengths. It's incredibly difficult not to do that. In fact, this is the first election in my lifetime (I remember when Carter was elected) where I feel like I've been able to be even remotely objective, and much of that has come from realizing that both sides feel as if the country will implode if the other guy gets elected, but it has never really happened. Democrats talk about horrible Bush was while Republicans talk about how horrible Obama is. Neither side is right because the USA just keeps chugging along, fat dumb and happy. A person's feelings on the state of the union depend almost exclusively on his or her political leanings rather than facts. If Republicans feel that Obama is the worst president ever, and Democrats think he's the best ever, they can't both be right, yet both sides will swear that the other is crazy. The truth is much more likely to be somewhere in the middle, though neither side is willing to admit that.

 

1. His credentials are good as I said. They have nothing to do with the arguments he made in his article. Do you know how easily I can find someone with the same credentials who says the opposite?
2. You didn't once, I mean even once, address Bernie's economics. You just kept calling him a communist over and over, and saying that communism doesn't work. Or saying he's too close to communism. However you want to put it.
3. I'm not going to read through, dissect, or waste any of my time with the articles you linked. I already read two of them and they were ridiculous.

 

Here is a direct quote from Bernie Sanders from the 1980s:

In his own words: His politics are his economics.

 

I guess when you take one sentence completely out of context, you can make that kind of assertion. If you read the entire quote it says to me that Bernie thinks it's bullshit that people with the most money dominate politics.

His last line where he says:

You can infer Bernie wants more people to make more money so that they have a bigger voice in the political process. Or, you can infer that Bernie is into wealth redistribution. But that doesnt really jive with the first part of your quite where he says people should be free.

 

What are you saying? You can infer anything, change context or view from a different perspective when talking about almost anything. Look at your last sentence, last word.....free. Free how? Free from what? He says free to the greatest extent possible: how free is that? who decides? It's all bullshit platitudes spoken by a politician.

That is one of the points I am making about his economic policy. He can say all kinds of stupid shit on the campaign trail he will never follow through with or not mean at all, pay attention to who he actually is and that goes for all of the other candidates as well. This quote just made for a convenient statement made by the man himself and how he views the inexorable relationship between politics and economics, that's all.

EDIT: Truth of the matter regarding Bernie is, after today, it doesn't matter. He's done.

 

I'd just like to point out that economic democracy, in the context of the quote above, could simply mean that campaign funding, lobbying, and other means of using money to influence politics needs to be revised to make the system more economically democratic.

Sorry to burst any bubbles, seeing how jumping to extreme conclusions is so much fun.