Page 122 of 218

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Wed May 23, 2018 7:20 pm UTC
by Thesh
The problem is that it's something on the state level, which blue states have shown that they are willing to do away with gerrymandering, but if you only do it in blue states then it will just benefit red states who maintain gerrymandering. Outlawing it on the federal level would mean getting pretty much 100% of dems on board, plus some Republicans, and that's just not something that will happen.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Wed May 23, 2018 9:27 pm UTC
by Dark567
Thesh wrote:The problem is that it's something on the state level, which blue states have shown that they are willing to do away with gerrymandering, but if you only do it in blue states then it will just benefit red states who maintain gerrymandering.
I don't think this is true at all. It was much more the Democrats that were pushing the supreme court for Gerrymandering in the 90's.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Wed May 23, 2018 9:38 pm UTC
by Tyndmyr
Dark567 wrote:
Thesh wrote:The problem is that it's something on the state level, which blue states have shown that they are willing to do away with gerrymandering, but if you only do it in blue states then it will just benefit red states who maintain gerrymandering.
I don't think this is true at all. It was much more the Democrats that were pushing the supreme court for Gerrymandering in the 90's.


Yeah, it's not really..."just a local thing" for democrats. MD is gerrymandered to hell for the democrats, and has been for some time. That's state level. There really isn't a "national level". State boundaries are fixed.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Wed May 23, 2018 10:20 pm UTC
by Thesh
In the 90s, sure, but in the 90s it was only used to create safe seats, which is mostly what Democrats use it for today. It's only since 2010 that it's been abused so heavily by Republicans, and California has switched to a non-partisan system.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Thu May 24, 2018 7:11 am UTC
by elasto
CorruptUser wrote:By unanimous decision, the NFL owners ban an expression of speech require all NFL players to stand for the pledge of allegiance.

Players are allowed to protest by staying in the locker room and out of sight of the public

*People riot due to police brutality*
"Why cant these hooligans protest nonviolently?"
*NFL players take a knee*
"NO, NOT LIKE THAT!!!"

Well put.

As much as the right likes to mock the left as 'snowflakes', the right can be just as delicate in their sensibilities.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Thu May 24, 2018 12:16 pm UTC
by Chen
Thesh wrote:In the 90s, sure, but in the 90s it was only used to create safe seats, which is mostly what Democrats use it for today.


Wait what? Isnt that the only point of Gerrymandering? To create safe seats for your party?

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Thu May 24, 2018 12:34 pm UTC
by Thesh
In the past it was about making sure an incumbent was safe. Starting with the 2010 redistricting, Republicans went well beyond just making incumbents safe to actually drawing the lines to increase the overall number of seats held by Republicans.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Thu May 24, 2018 1:50 pm UTC
by arbiteroftruth
CorruptUser wrote:link

By unanimous decision, the NFL owners ban an expression of speech require all NFL players to stand for the pledge of alliagence.

Players are allowed to protest by staying in the locker room and out of sight of the public

*People riot due to police brutality*
"Why cant these hooligans protest nonviolently?"
*NFL players take a knee*
"NO, NOT LIKE THAT!!!"


They're professional performers who are on the clock. There's nothing unreasonable about saying "no politics on the job", particularly when it results in boycotts from a non-trivial chunk of the audience.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Thu May 24, 2018 2:02 pm UTC
by Thesh
They are a government sanctioned monopoly who receives government money, and are making political statements by 1) forcing players to stand for the national anthem and 2) silencing players who would disagree with that political statement.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Thu May 24, 2018 2:09 pm UTC
by arbiteroftruth
And? Yeah, it's silly for the government to be involved in an entertainment business, but that doesn't change the realities of running that business, nor is there anything abnormal or unreasonable about restricting the expression of people who are essentially government employees.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Thu May 24, 2018 2:12 pm UTC
by Zohar
arbiteroftruth wrote:They're professional performers who are on the clock. There's nothing unreasonable about saying "no politics on the job", particularly when it results in boycotts from a non-trivial chunk of the audience.

As Thesh already mentioned, banning protests is already including politics on the job.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Thu May 24, 2018 2:19 pm UTC
by arbiteroftruth
Zohar wrote:
arbiteroftruth wrote:They're professional performers who are on the clock. There's nothing unreasonable about saying "no politics on the job", particularly when it results in boycotts from a non-trivial chunk of the audience.

As Thesh already mentioned, banning protests is already including politics on the job.


What course of action would correspond to saying "no politics on the job" then?

By your standard, it would seem that politics in the NFL are inevitable, in which case they might as well do whatever best pleases their audience.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Thu May 24, 2018 2:21 pm UTC
by Zohar
Yes, politics are inevitable. Everything is political. But their decision was wrong, and people should learn to live with it.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Thu May 24, 2018 2:21 pm UTC
by Thesh
The fact that they are granted special protections by the government and receive government funding specifically for promoting the DoD means that there may very well be a free speech issue, and they aren't allowed to silence people. If you are forcing people to make a political statement, you automatically lose the right to claim that employees don't have the right to a political statement.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Thu May 24, 2018 2:26 pm UTC
by arbiteroftruth
Thesh wrote:The fact that they are granted special protections by the government and receive government funding specifically for promoting the DoD means that there may very well be a free speech issue, and they aren't allowed to silence people. If you are forcing people to make a political statement, you automatically lose the right to claim that employees don't have the right to a political statement.


So, for example, the Trump administration has no right to tell Sarah Sanders what political positions she can or can't express on the job?

Being funded directly by the government doesn't increase the reasonable expectation of free speech; it decreases it.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Thu May 24, 2018 2:33 pm UTC
by Thesh
The President's staff is political, that's not really relevant. It's not just that they are telling them not to make political statements, it's that they are telling players to make a specific political statement while silencing another.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Thu May 24, 2018 2:42 pm UTC
by arbiteroftruth
Thesh wrote:The President's staff is political, that's not really relevant. It's not just that they are telling them not to make political statements, it's that they are telling players to make a specific political statement while silencing another.


It was established above that everything is political. If you disagree with Zohar on that point, then my question is: what political statement are the players being told to make? They have the option of staying in the locker room if they don't want to stand for the anthem. If the ban on protesting itself constitutes telling them to make a statement, then we're back to "everything is political" and they have no more reasonable expectation of free speech than Sarah Sanders does.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Thu May 24, 2018 2:44 pm UTC
by HES

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Thu May 24, 2018 2:45 pm UTC
by CorruptUser
Sports has always been full of politics, because it is so visible. You think Jackie Robinson wasn't political?


If you truly believe that sports shouldnt have politics at all, then shouldnt you be advocating for the removal of the Pledge entirely?

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Thu May 24, 2018 2:55 pm UTC
by freezeblade
HES wrote:Surprise surfuckingprise... Trump cancels Kim summit amid North Korea 'hostility'


"Didn't see that coming"
-nobody ever.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Thu May 24, 2018 3:17 pm UTC
by arbiteroftruth
CorruptUser wrote:Sports has always been full of politics, because it is so visible. You think Jackie Robinson wasn't political?


If you truly believe that sports shouldnt have politics at all, then shouldnt you be advocating for the removal of the Pledge entirely?


I'm not saying there shouldn't be any politics in sports. I'm saying that there's nothing special about NFL players.

I have a job that doesn't particularly involve public speaking or performing in any way, and yet there is a clause in my employment contract to the effect that if I cause a big public controversy around myself such that it becomes a political statement simply to keep employing me, then I can be fired or face other disciplinary measures. This seems completely reasonable to me, because I would have put the company in a position of having no way to avoid a political statement, and they have the right to take whichever stance they prefer. I don't see any reason NFL players should be treated any differently in this regard. The fact that they are professional performers only makes it more reasonable, and the fact that they are funded by an inherently political entity such as the government only makes it more reasonable still.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Thu May 24, 2018 3:37 pm UTC
by elasto
That's fine, but then the right should be consistent, supporting the 'suppression' of right-wing views too - without throwing out accusations of their 'free speech' being 'violated' by 'snowflakes'...

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Thu May 24, 2018 3:45 pm UTC
by Tyndmyr
Thesh wrote:In the 90s, sure, but in the 90s it was only used to create safe seats, which is mostly what Democrats use it for today. It's only since 2010 that it's been abused so heavily by Republicans, and California has switched to a non-partisan system.


Electoral advantage is electoral advantage? Getting as many safe seats as possible is sort of the problem with gerrymandering. MD is drawn such that seven of the seats are democratic, while the first district clumps as many rural republican areas as possible into one red seat. All the others utilize heavy democratic and urban areas piecemeal to get adequate democratic voters to outweigh the rural chunks they possess.

Look at the map: Image

You can't reasonably blame that on Republicans, cause the state's blue as hell. And while it has gotten worse, it was also gerrymandered in this fashion in the '90s, so...

The democrats are conjuring up a sense of outraged nobility after losing the electoral shenanigans fight they cheerfully participated in when it was advantageous to them.

arbiteroftruth wrote:
Thesh wrote:The fact that they are granted special protections by the government and receive government funding specifically for promoting the DoD means that there may very well be a free speech issue, and they aren't allowed to silence people. If you are forcing people to make a political statement, you automatically lose the right to claim that employees don't have the right to a political statement.


So, for example, the Trump administration has no right to tell Sarah Sanders what political positions she can or can't express on the job?

Being funded directly by the government doesn't increase the reasonable expectation of free speech; it decreases it.


That's a hatch act thing, advertising money ought not matter either way. The government choosing to buy advertising or not shouldn't affect unrelated free speech rights.

I don't really care about sports either way, but this particular chain of logic seems like a non-issue. As for right wing people having PC standards of their own, well, of course they do. No different than the left on that score.


As for North Korea, eh...yeah, I thought it was likely that we'd end up going round in circles again. At least we got folks out this time, so that's a concrete plus, at least for them.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Thu May 24, 2018 4:06 pm UTC
by Diemo
I have a job that doesn't particularly involve public speaking or performing in any way, and yet there is a clause in my employment contract to the effect that if I cause a big public controversy around myself such that it becomes a political statement simply to keep employing me, then I can be fired or face other disciplinary measures


So, I'm going to assume that you are American? Because that clause seems extremely unreasonable to me. My political views should not be a reason to be fire me (provided that I am not endangering other safety, etc. etc.).

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Thu May 24, 2018 4:28 pm UTC
by CorruptUser
So if you start waving the ISIS flag but there is no evidence of any hate crimes beyond this, you couldnt be fired?

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Thu May 24, 2018 4:37 pm UTC
by Dauric
Diemo wrote:
I have a job that doesn't particularly involve public speaking or performing in any way, and yet there is a clause in my employment contract to the effect that if I cause a big public controversy around myself such that it becomes a political statement simply to keep employing me, then I can be fired or face other disciplinary measures


So, I'm going to assume that you are American? Because that clause seems extremely unreasonable to me. My political views should not be a reason to be fire me (provided that I am not endangering other safety, etc. etc.).


It's typically about making a political statement while on "company time". The players could protest all they like on their own time but when they're "on the clock", and as employees charged with "creating content" for their respective companies, the content that they create is up to the company.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Thu May 24, 2018 4:46 pm UTC
by Pfhorrest
While I don't agree with the NFL's decision, is does still seem that there is ripe opportunity for visible protest, precisely because the protestors are so numerous: if no players come out of the locker room for the pledge, or even more if only one or two do, that's going to be really visible, just for their absence.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Thu May 24, 2018 4:53 pm UTC
by Thesh
Assuming a majority actually do it. I don't watch the NFL, but my understanding is it was a minority of players that was regularly taking a knee.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Thu May 24, 2018 5:11 pm UTC
by Pfhorrest
Ah, I don't watch it either but I had the impression that it was a whole lot of them.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Thu May 24, 2018 5:11 pm UTC
by arbiteroftruth
Diemo wrote:
I have a job that doesn't particularly involve public speaking or performing in any way, and yet there is a clause in my employment contract to the effect that if I cause a big public controversy around myself such that it becomes a political statement simply to keep employing me, then I can be fired or face other disciplinary measures


So, I'm going to assume that you are American? Because that clause seems extremely unreasonable to me. My political views should not be a reason to be fire me (provided that I am not endangering other safety, etc. etc.).


Yes, I'm American, but as was pointed out by others, it's mostly about a couple of things. First, it's about political stances taken in a context in which I would be seen as representing the company. Second, even when I'm on my own time, it's about flagrantly extreme things like waving an ISIS flag or going on some long bigoted rant, and having said behavior go viral and turning my association with the company into a liability for them. These are the kinds of things that clause is meant to capture. Yeah, there's probably some room to abuse it to fire people for somewhat more mainstream views, but such an abuse could turn into an embarrassing controversy in its own right, so it's not likely to be particularly common.

elasto wrote:That's fine, but then the right should be consistent, supporting the 'suppression' of right-wing views too - without throwing out accusations of their 'free speech' being 'violated' by 'snowflakes'...


True, hypocrisy is abundant. It's mostly a matter of keeping things in the right perspective. It's reasonable to disagree with the political statement inherent with such an act of 'suppression'. But that's not the same thing as treating such an act as being outside the bounds of political fair play. The former is just the nature of political disagreement. The latter is a mischaracterization of the opposition.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Thu May 24, 2018 7:40 pm UTC
by addams
elasto wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:By unanimous decision, the NFL owners ban an expression of speech require all NFL players to stand for the pledge of allegiance.

Players are allowed to protest by staying in the locker room and out of sight of the public

*People riot due to police brutality*
"Why cant these hooligans protest nonviolently?"
*NFL players take a knee*
"NO, NOT LIKE THAT!!!"

Well put.

As much as the right likes to mock the left as 'snowflakes', the right can be just as delicate in their sensibilities.
I am so angry I can't form a coherent sentence.

A beautiful, strong and hard working Black Man silently falls to his knee in sorrow.
An ugly, spoiled, racist Ass-Hat uses Money and a BullHorn to stop him. (AHHH!)

What??
There is no problem until we have Strange Fruit hanging in the trees?

No.
Even that is not a problem.

The dead bodies can not be acknowledged.
Not even in silence, in view of The Public.

This is a game that leaves the players damaged.
This is a Supreme Leader that damages a nation.

What, exactly, are Beautiful, Strong Black Men allowed to do??
Get in there and take The Hit for the entertainment of White Men?

My dearest hope is No Player ever leaves the locker room until AFTER that Stupid Music is out of the air.
Nah...I've never enjoyed that game. I may never understand the Joy of watching violence. That's Okay.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Fri May 25, 2018 4:17 am UTC
by dubsola
Diemo wrote:So, I'm going to assume that you are American? Because that clause seems extremely unreasonable to me. My political views should not be a reason to be fire me (provided that I am not endangering other safety, etc. etc.).

Actually that is the case in other western countries. Certainly in my country government employees are not allowed to post political views on FB. They're not even allowed to share news articles that are critical of government policy.


Unrelated, and apologies if I missed it, but how are NFL players funded by the government? I thought the NFL and the teams were all private entities.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Fri May 25, 2018 4:47 am UTC
by CorruptUser
The local cities bend over backwards for the NFL, with the stadiums paid for by the taxpayers and all sorts of shady shit being covered up solely because if any politician pisses off the NFL that politician WILL lose the next election one way or another.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Fri May 25, 2018 7:02 am UTC
by addams
The Government supports the Game with Paid Patriotism.

For the FOX viewers among us.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vcpu0CN-Kbo

FOX explains.
The NFL was paid by the DOD to market military service to Spectators.
The players were not on the field during the Music until 2009!

Republicans Jhon McCain and Jeff Flake spoke out against the practice in 2015.


If you like to read,
Here it is in written form.
https://sports.vice.com/en_us/article/y ... sm-problem
Add in the fact that the NFL received millions of taxpayer dollars from the Department of Defense and the National Guard for patriotic displays, and it puts the entire Kaepernick hullabaloo in a different light. "Fans should have confidence that their hometown heroes are being honored because of their honorable military service, not as a marketing ploy," Senator John McCain, the Vietnam War veteran and P.O.W., said in a statement last year coinciding with "Tackling Paid Patriotism," a joint oversight report released by McCain and his fellow Arizona Republican Senator John Flake.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Sat May 26, 2018 5:59 am UTC
by Thesh
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/20 ... re-to-die/

“I am so ready. Let’s get it on. Prepare to die cock sucker,” Stone messaged Credico on April 9.


Stone maintains this was not a threat, and simply a response to Credico telling Stone he had terminal cancer.

In a text message to Mother Jones, Stone did not dispute sending this particular message to Credico. But he maintains he was not making a threat and contends that Credico is citing his words out of context. “He told me he had terminal prostate cancer,” Stone writes. “It was sent in response to that. We talked about it too. He was depressed about it. Or he was lying?” (In other messages provided by Credico, Stone appears to have said he was not threatening him.)

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Sat May 26, 2018 6:27 am UTC
by addams
Oh....!
Uh-Oh...

I was feeling compassionate toward the Stone Hearted Stone.

I misread your post.
Nevermind.

Stone, just, looks that way.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Tue May 29, 2018 3:31 pm UTC
by Tyndmyr
Context sounds like a threat to me. Probably empty, because most people talk a lot of crap, but still.

The excuse of "oh, he had terminal cancer, that explains why I said that" doesn't really make Stone sound like less of a terrible human.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Thu May 31, 2018 8:09 pm UTC
by emceng
Tariffs seem like a wonderful idea. Nothing like pissing off your allies to try and protect a tiny portion of the economy, at the same time causing major problems with large portions of the economy. Bravo.

It's like John Oliver said, Trump manages to pick the worst possible option for nearly every decision. I mean look at it - he could pardon anyone accused of federal crimes, and he does Scooter Libby and Joe fucking Arpaio. He could fight China on their trade practices, instead he starts a lopsided trade war, then pockets millions in a bribe to keep a foreign company afloat, one that was credibly accused of spying. He could condemn Nazis, and he equivocates. He could praise the Waffle House hero, and he fucking ignores the guy.

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Fri Jun 01, 2018 2:28 am UTC
by addams
ah-um...
You are needed in the Police Misbehavior Thread.
It has morphed into The Trump Show.

Go my pretties!
Go and Post!

Re: Trump presidency

Posted: Sun Jun 03, 2018 3:44 pm UTC
by LaserGuy
This has been making the rounds in Canadian news, not sure if it's getting play in the American news or not: Counter-tariffs to target Republican leadership, swing states