StrangeSox

Hey guys, torture works, Trump's been told so it's true! Absolutely disgusting.

USDA lifts gag order: report http://thehill.com/homenews/administration...ts-research-arm

I don't have a problem with mattis, either. Is there a reason to?

QUOTE (bmags @ Jan 25, 2017 -> 09:07 AM) Have called Durbin's and Duckworth's staff the last few days, today again. They sound wishy washy as eff on Sessions. I would highly recommend calling them if you have not (though they said they've been swamped with calls to vote no). Also called Rauner's office who said he had no planned comment on Trumps message, would also recommend giving them a ring to remind him who his constituents are. Do the same for devos

This is really scary stuff. Every day since his inauguration has been another step down the ethnic nationalist authoritarian road.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 25, 2017 -> 05:54 AM) I hope you're right, but fear you're wrong. And it's not just Trump doing this. He couldn't accomplish much without the support of his party, and they seem fully behind him. And based on his tweets this morning, they're definitely going farther down the voter suppression road and using his delusional beliefs about the popular vote as a justification. I really do fear that we're close to the edge of losing a true democracy here.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 24, 2017 -> 08:47 PM) It's pretty depressing that someone so clearly unqualified, so very bigoted and misogynist, so clinically narcissistic, was elected. Heck I've voted for more GOP'ers than Dems over the years and I find him appalling. That said... --A majority of voters didn't want him to be President, and since he was elected his support has been plummeting - which indicates how things may go for him --Remember that even when Obama, and Bush before him, had brief full party control in the legislature, even they could only do so much --The 2018 Congressional elections at the state and federal levels will almost assuredly rock the boat back left - this is just history. --Speaking of that, whomever does do well in 2018 gets control over 2020 redistricting efforts. 2010 it was GOP control, and 2020 probably is more Dem control, though we'll see how it goes. Balancing out. --Citizens were duped by fake news, but the citizenry adapts over time. Slowly, but, they do. It won't work forever. --Trump got the margin of victory by those silent supporters, not the loud ones. And the silent majority is always easiest to sway. They won't stick with him for long. Things will balance out. Meanwhile, yeah, it will suck, and not just for liberals mind you. Those of us who are aligned with a Republican Party who emphasizes individual freedoms and fiscal restraint are also disgusted by this man. But I do believe we will be OK in the end. Just need to hope for minimal damage in the meantime. I hope you're right, but fear you're wrong. And it's not just Trump doing this. He couldn't accomplish much without the support of his party, and they seem fully behind him.

:v Edit: it's too late to say "of course I knew that, it was obviously a joke," isn't it?

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jan 24, 2017 -> 04:30 PM) We are living in Goerge Orwell's 1984. A string of science-based tweets from one of the national parks have all been deleted. Edit: Some of their tweets were captured here. Whoever is running that Twitter account right now gives zero f***s https://mobile.twitter.com/BadIandsNPS

Like I said, it's about moral posturing, not outcomes.

From Press Sec. Spicer today, on Trump's continued lies about 3-5 million people voting illegal for Clinton: This is going to be used as justification for widespread voter disenfranchisement via ending early voting, shuttering polling places in democratic-heavy areas, instituting strict voter ID laws, and purging voter rolls. We'll get zero push back from DOJ and the courts, too. edit: I also don't doubt for a second that Trump 100% believes he "really" won the popular vote and this is how his brain is justifying it because people with NPD can't admit failure or fault.

so Warren's come out and said that she'll vote for Carson for HUD lol at me for thinking Democrats could make even token efforts in opposition.

PBS's Secrets of the Dead had a show about a similar instance where Britain bugged an estate where they were holding a bunch of captured Nazi officers. http://www.pbs.org/wnet/secrets/bugging-hi...ll-episode/947/ People blab a whole lot about things they probably shouldn't when they think nobody is listening. Another Nuclear Nazis link: When did the Allies know there wasn’t a German bomb? And if you're interested in the early history of nuclear physics and the Manhattan Project, I strongly recommend Making of The Atomic Bomb.

QUOTE (brett05 @ Jan 24, 2017 -> 02:26 PM) Allowing more access to contraceptives and the lower teen pregnancy rate do not necessarily correlate. It's a correlation that more than likely cannot be proven. Crime has risen since school prayer has ended, thus bring back school prayer. I can't buy that argument. That's essentially saying we should throw our hands in the air and we can't ever really know anything. Solipsism isn't a solid basis for policy, either. We can look at places that have implemented abstinence-only education and compare them to those who haven't. We can then compare what the teen pregnancy and STD rates are both before certain policies are implemented or changed and between the different policies in different places. From that, we can make a very well educated conclusion. In this particular case, the evidence is entirely on the side of abstinence-only education having worse outcomes, if you define "higher teen pregnancy and STD rates" as a worse outcome. The school prayer example actually hurts your case rather than helps it. School prayer was found to be unconstitutional in 62 and 63. Crime rates were already climbing prior to that, which is the first strong point against the idea that school prayer tamps down crime rate. The second is that the crime rate rose to a peak late 80's/early 90's and has since steadily declined despite a lack of change in school prayer policy.

Federal Workers Told To Halt External Communication In First Week Under Trump?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 24, 2017 -> 12:56 PM) It is amazing how many times they state that they (The Germans) didn't really want to win the war. I know that at least Otto Hahn wasn't a member of the Nazi party and tried to shield people from Nazi persecution. But ultimately they still stuck around Germany doing physics for the Nazis, even if their hearts weren't fully committed to the Nazi ideology. FWIW the "engine" they're referencing is the attempt to build a nuclear power plant. Germany didn't devote too much effort to researching how to build a bomb because their scientists made a critical early error when they calculated the cross-section of uranium. It lead them to believe that you'd need so much uranium to have a nuclear explosion that it would be so large that they 1) couldn't possibly supply enough uranium and 2) wouldn't be able to realistically transport the thing anywhere. e: and there was almost definitely some post hoc rationalization for 1) their work under the Nazi regime 2) Germany's failure and 3) their personal failures at the physics of the matter.

WWII and atomic history nerds might like reading over this. It's a transcript of secretly recorded captured Nazi Germany scientists as they learn that America has used a nuclear weapon on Japan.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Jan 24, 2017 -> 12:03 PM) You're not even interested in talking about the issue. You just need to point out who's wrong. I admitted to things I shouldn't have I don't owe you anything. Your first post was trash that was trying to insult me based on your own ignorance. QUOTE (raBBit @ Jan 24, 2017 -> 10:22 AM) Why exactly are thousands of women dropping dead with less access to abortion? Do you believe that or are you just parroting Vox.com lol. Did thousands of women die in the 1800's because of lack of access to abortion? To be clear, I am totally for women's abortion rights and border on encouraging it. In essence, don't have kids you can't provide a good life to. That being said, this article is just fear-mongering from a bad source. It continued downhill with the smug condescension after that. Don't pretend that you just want to "talk about the issue" and that your ignorant posts were anyone's fault but your own.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Jan 24, 2017 -> 11:55 AM) My initial point was the hypocrisy of you putting every source posted by people you don't agree with in question and then posting a link from Vox. I know what the issue is. I just haven't heard it from the lens of you, Steve and badger. I'll admit, the past couple days I read that that Trump was to make it so NGOs couldn't promote abortion and receive US funding. It seems he's making it so they can't perform abortions. While this is a humanitarian issue that complicates things, I typically don't believe in foreign aid for a country who has an insurmountable debt and problems at home already. It's not as if Trump barred the NGO's from operating, he just barred one of the 170 countries supporting International Planned Parented (for instance) from funding the organization. Everyone coming at me in this thread is making it black and white. It's not that simple. Perhaps I should've the Vox article (can't believe I just typed that) before commenting but even so, it's not as if they're some authoritative source. In the future I'll just refrain from commenting on their stuff. But to the issue, this policy that Trump chose has been in effect for nearly half of the last thirty plus years. It's gone back and forth depending the party of the president. Even so, the American people are against the gov't using tax dollars to fund abortion abroad. From Marist Poll's study released yesterday:"Americans overwhelmingly oppose the use of tax dollars to support abortion in other countries (83 percent). More than six in 10 Americans (61 percent) also oppose the use of tax dollars to fund abortions in the United States. This includes almost nine in 10 Trump supporters (87 percent) and even nearly four in 10 Clinton supporters (39 percent)." lol just put on your big boy pants and admit that you were wrong and didn't know what you were talking about while trying to smug it up. edit: and no you had no clue what the issue is because you were talking about women in the US when the issue is about FOREIGN AID, jesus just admit that you f***ed up edit2: and yes perhaps you should read an article before trying to portray it in any way? I dunno seems like a smart idea to me but whatever floats your boat.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Jan 24, 2017 -> 11:15 AM) A.) You're getting personal. Cut it out. Perhaps you should check the rules of the filibuster. B.) I have always been an advocate of increased access to abortion. I just don't buy the argument that women are going to start dropping dead in America because they have less access to abortion than they did last week. Whatever you and the other Vox readers are associating to me is not my opinion. I don't agree with Trump's action. I don't agree with Vox's take on it. Perhaps your wish of being ignorant is unnecessary. There is a spectrum of where you can stand on issues. It's not Trump or Vox. However, with your form of rhetoric, it's just about character attacks and anyone who disagrees with Vox wants to kill women. I'll kindly suggest again that you bother to familiarize yourself with the very basic elements of the topic you're trying to "do you just parrot that lol" and dismiss out of hand before commenting on it. You still very clearly have zero idea what the issue at hand even is, yet you're continuing to try to comment on it, to dismiss what others have said even though you clearly do not understand what they are saying, and engage in reflexive woe-is-me defensiveness that you do any time anyone bothers to engage with you. Because you can't be bothered to read the article you dismissed as biased and fear-mongering, I'll point out the major issue you haven't grasped yet: the executive order covers US FOREIGN AID. Nobody in this thread or in the Vox article was talking about people in America. Again, if you had bothered to read the article or familiarized yourself in any way with the topic at hand before wading in to make smug dismissals, you'd have known that and wouldn't look so foolish.

QUOTE (brett05 @ Jan 24, 2017 -> 11:12 AM) I appreciate the information, however it does not address that we shouldn't be funding murders. If a government still allows the abortions, that's on them, right? QUOTE (brett05 @ Jan 24, 2017 -> 11:12 AM) I am in favor of sex within the bonds of marriage. QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 24, 2017 -> 10:55 AM) Just like with "abstinence-only" policies, the end result is worse but it's more about moral posturing than efficacy. *should modify my own post to clarify that the end result is worse from their own stated goals of fewer unwanted pregnancies and fewer abortions

QUOTE (brett05 @ Jan 24, 2017 -> 11:08 AM) Correct, we save millions of lives in this world by outlawing abortion. I'm legitimately confused at this point. I understand you're against abortion, but are you also against contraceptive education and supplies, and are you in favor of abstinence-only education?

I think brett was referring specifically to the abortion side of that claim. edit: lol guess not, shame on me for giving him the benefit of the doubt QUOTE (brett05 @ Jan 24, 2017 -> 11:07 AM) Abstinence only is a form of birth control. Also the only one that is 100% full proof edit2: still confused

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Jan 24, 2017 -> 10:53 AM) Thousands of women's lives will be lost. But if you're referring to abortions...they're going to increase. That's what happened the last time this policy was put in place. Just like with "abstinence-only" policies, the end result is worse but it's more about moral posturing than efficacy.