Whether it's your first Bonnaroo or you’re a music festival veteran, we welcome you to Inforoo.
Here you'll find info about artists, rumors, camping tips, and the infamous Roo Clues. Have a look around then create an account and join in the fun. See you at Bonnaroo!!
If they actually gave a shit about people with mental illness they'd be talking about suicide rates and firearm ownership. That's the gun violence that harms them the most. So if you're wanting to bar people with bi-polar,like myself, from having guns actually understand the issue. Don't just use us as a scapegoat.
That's to politicians. Not Jaz, who I agree with.
I'm hesitant to support sweeping legislation barring those with Axis I disorders because I know several people (yourself included) who wouldn't hurt anyone. That being said, you'd probably also agree that when not following their medication/treatment protocol, people with such disorders...can get wily in one way or another, and unfortunately that often ends in hospitalization even when violence isn't involved. I think it's important that we don't further stigmatize people for having an illness, but we also need to take precautions to try and make sure weapons aren't easily accessible to people who might not have the firmest grip on reality (or are at least prone to slipping into such a state). I'm not sure how possible it would be to create legislation nuanced enough to balance both sides of this. Since such legislation would directly affect you, is that sort of legislation something you would support?
I'm walking out the door so I'll response more to the topic later. For now, yes I'd be fine with such legislation. I own guns but I have them in my parent's house in a safe. I think giving up some of my rights for the greater good is perfectly acceptable. Like you, I have no idea how you would implement that law fairly. It's likely that you couldn't.
My only point was demonizing mental illness instead of focusing on how gun violence actually affects them is bad policy speak. Or at least incomplete.
I don’t think mental illness even comes into play for a majority of these mass shooters They are just mean as shit and assholes.
To be clear, I think this is 100% correct.
In my view, if you want to deal with gun violence as it affects the mentally ill you'd make policy that actually confronts the real issue for those people. That would be suicide. So you'd be looking at universal mental health care and maybe banning gun ownership for people with documented mental health disorders.
It shouldn't be worded or presented as a serious solution for mass shootings because that's not where this is truly coming from. It's coming from racism and misogyny which is social and learned behavior.
As we tie gun policy to immigration, Cruz and other propose further tax cuts in relation to interest rates increasing (aka DUMP YOUR FUCKING STOCKS NOW).
Right on cue.
UGH, there's some days you wish you weren't right about the math/science of economics. UGH.
The market crash today was mostly due to China devaluing the Yuan to about $0.14. It was a possible eventual move by the Chinese in response to this stupid fucking trade war. And they moved on president trumps threat to add a 10% tariff to up to 300B of Chinese goods. It’s all unnecessary and cost American investors billions of dollars today. Dictators require so-called boogie men to rile up their base. This administration is somewhat unique in that they don’t really give a fuck who or how many enemies they can manufacture. They are always in “hot water” and love nothing more than to get in some type of esoteric fight so that the ignorant among us will take sides while ignoring the utter bullshit weighing down on them . It should be evident to anyone with an acorn sized brain (apparently more than we should expect from your average white person) since this has been going on since the campaign. What maybe wasn’t so obvious was how many willing idiots dwelled among us.
Throwing one’s weight around and bullying shit is not the way to expand market share of anything. This is basic. However Trump relies on his supporters being even more basic. Unfortunately his calculations are probably right. So we wade through stupid trade and economic policies for pretty much no reason at all
Ok serious questions, especially since I have been slammed at work and don't have time to do the research. How were the last trade wars ended? I remember that this wasn't the first tariffs on other countries goods, and I am assuming since we had trade deals in place that this has happened before. Can anyone give me the long of the short of it all?
That Fox News piece on Google got the attention of Trump today.
How is that he trusts Fox News with no legitimate research yet won’t believe several of his own intelligence organizations on Russia interfering?
E: this tweet makes it look like he’s pro google but read the thread for full context
Imagine being someone who has worked up the ladder to get to the point where you are the CEO of Google and having to go in and bend the knee to this man with a melting brain in order for him to not tweet and change the opinion of your company to 40% of the country that believe his every word. That would really suck
It is very sad that a 72 year old man has to tweet about how someone likes them. This reads like an 11 year old girl's diary (no offense to 11 year old girls, that's the acceptable age to write things like this).
"Becky was at my house today and she said she really likes me and how good I'm doing. We're bffs. She doesn't like Ashley either, I like that."
Ok serious questions, especially since I have been slammed at work and don't have time to do the research. How were the last trade wars ended? I remember that this wasn't the first tariffs on other countries goods, and I am assuming since we had trade deals in place that this has happened before. Can anyone give me the long of the short of it all?
Oh and how do these tariffs end, realistically?
The trade wars will end (if they want them to) when new deals are reached (or like NAFTA, essentially the same deal with a new name). Same with the tariffs. Last trade wars were in the 1980's which was a different time. A particularly flagrant imbalance was with South Korea who was allowed to dump below-market Hyundai Excels on the market (often buy one get one free sales). They averaged around $4,500 or so per car. The backside was that the Aries-K, thought to be one of the lowest end US cars at the time, cost roughly $47,000 in South Korea. So you need to balance that over time as countries developing certain markets may have protectionist policies in place as a favor to donors or to help build a new sector of that country's economy (auto exports for South Korea in the example).
A lot of people rightfully don't approve of exporting democracy and market based economics by force. However, you can massage those things with trade policy. The Trans Pacific Partnership was an instance where western economies got together to counter massively growing Chinese influence. It would have allowed duty-free trade (or mostly duty-free) between the member countries. It was a good idea to integrate favorable trade polices with your actual allies, and certainly as a hedge against future Chinese dominance. It got a bad name during the campaign due to mass right-wing emails ranting about the OMG TPP! to the point where Hillary came out against it because the three letters together was everything that was wrong with America. I think all the other participants ratified, and we fucked up.
The Trump administration seems to like unilateral trade agreements rather than larger trade packages. I think that's one of the reasons they are so pro-Brexit which is an otherwise really stupid place for American foreign policy to be. But Trump must feel like he can sign a deal pretty easily with the English and get a "win" on sticking it to Brussels (and by design, Berlin and Paris as well). It's dumb and petty.
Anyway, as trade moves bring pressure down on both sides, they usually will figure out a way to make things a little more balanced for both parties. They're not nuanced enough to understand the value of strategic trade initiatives, so they will cheer for the dictator type leader that they feel like they can rub elbows with to get things done. It's all such a waste right now. OTOH, I fully understand and support any punitive measures against China for its endless stealing of intellectual property and copyrights. They don't play fair, and they should be made to suffer for their transgressions and illegal practices. Starting a trade war wasn't the way to get at that, but it gives them another "enemy" to rail about when it's convenient.
Ok serious questions, especially since I have been slammed at work and don't have time to do the research. How were the last trade wars ended? I remember that this wasn't the first tariffs on other countries goods, and I am assuming since we had trade deals in place that this has happened before. Can anyone give me the long of the short of it all?
Oh and how do these tariffs end, realistically?
The trade wars will end (if they want them to) when new deals are reached (or like NAFTA, essentially the same deal with a new name). Same with the tariffs. Last trade wars were in the 1980's which was a different time. A particularly flagrant imbalance was with South Korea who was allowed to dump below-market Hyundai Excels on the market (often buy one get one free sales). They averaged around $4,500 or so per car. The backside was that the Aries-K, thought to be one of the lowest end US cars at the time, cost roughly $47,000 in South Korea. So you need to balance that over time as countries developing certain markets may have protectionist policies in place as a favor to donors or to help build a new sector of that country's economy (auto exports for South Korea in the example).
A lot of people rightfully don't approve of exporting democracy and market based economics by force. However, you can massage those things with trade policy. The Trans Pacific Partnership was an instance where western economies got together to counter massively growing Chinese influence. It would have allowed duty-free trade (or mostly duty-free) between the member countries. It was a good idea to integrate favorable trade polices with your actual allies, and certainly as a hedge against future Chinese dominance. It got a bad name during the campaign due to mass right-wing emails ranting about the OMG TPP! to the point where Hillary came out against it because the three letters together was everything that was wrong with America. I think all the other participants ratified, and we fucked up.
The Trump administration seems to like unilateral trade agreements rather than larger trade packages. I think that's one of the reasons they are so pro-Brexit which is an otherwise really stupid place for American foreign policy to be. But Trump must feel like he can sign a deal pretty easily with the English and get a "win" on sticking it to Brussels (and by design, Berlin and Paris as well). It's dumb and petty.
Anyway, as trade moves bring pressure down on both sides, they usually will figure out a way to make things a little more balanced for both parties. They're not nuanced enough to understand the value of strategic trade initiatives, so they will cheer for the dictator type leader that they feel like they can rub elbows with to get things done. It's all such a waste right now. OTOH, I fully understand and support any punitive measures against China for its endless stealing of intellectual property and copyrights. They don't play fair, and they should be made to suffer for their transgressions and illegal practices. Starting a trade war wasn't the way to get at that, but it gives them another "enemy" to rail about when it's convenient.
Important to note to that the damage done by this current trade war, which is a unilateral set of choices, does direct damage to marketplaces that produce items. It's relevant that when people make deals for property and elements to manufacture items that they make long term deals with companies and countries; us fucking with that constantly causes fluctuations in the market that seem to unevenly effect the lower/smaller-stock holders, the workers that get hired or fired, and companies built on delivering products. So there will already be long term damage from this one, as shown in the solar/wind industries that should up and coming but instead are going to lose out to Chinese and other nations lower costs internationally.
A lot of the "America First" strategy is actually quite fascist or isolationist, because it demands other nations follow our policy, or we will attempt to punish you.
Post by SupeЯfuЯЯyanimal on Aug 6, 2019 16:20:57 GMT -5
Just now digging into all this but I wanted to share it. An investigative report on Brian Kemp's time as SoS and how he used intimidation* and legal force to suppress the African American vote.
Post by SupeЯfuЯЯyanimal on Aug 6, 2019 22:51:32 GMT -5
This is a really good introductory interview for Bernie.
Has anyone been looking at the polls since the debate? Tulsi seemed to have done some damage to Kamala. I'd also say the lukewarm reception to those bills she rolled out right before the debate hurt as well. Would be pretty funny if Tulsi's biggest impact was helping take down one of the establishment favorites but Harris would likely still end up Biden's VP. So that's a potential two to four terms before we could get a progressive.... not forgetting a likely GOP term or two somewhere in there. So we could easily be talking a decade or two.
Just started listening. JFC Rogan does so many ad reads. Nine minutes of ads at the top.
Thankfully the Youtube versions don't have ad reads.
I finished listening to the whole thing about an hour ago. It was decent, for a JRE episode it was kind of dry. Hour long episodes are extremely short for JRE standards. But it's understandable, Bernie is a very busy man. You can tell Joe Rogan was taking into account that Bernie only had an hour to be there. It seemed like he wanted to hit a broad range of topics which made the podcast have a more "interview" feel to it rather than just two dudes having a conversation.
Just started listening. JFC Rogan does so many ad reads. Nine minutes of ads at the top.
Thankfully the Youtube versions don't have ad reads.
I finished listening to the whole thing about an hour ago. It was decent, for a JRE episode it was kind of dry. Hour long episodes are extremely short for JRE standards. But it's understandable, Bernie is a very busy man. You can tell Joe Rogan was taking into account that Bernie only had an hour to be there. It seemed like he wanted to hit a broad range of topics which made the podcast have a more "interview" feel to it rather than just two dudes having a conversation.
I think they've tackled upon every important subject where things need to change in the US; health care, college dept, mass shootings, climate change etc. I don't think it was dry at all because in comparison to the short answer format on television you can actually get to see the views of a politician in a longer format and I think that's great. Ofcourse it's not a debate or a conversation but I don't think that was really the point here and Joe asked some great questions where I think Bernie struggled a few times himself to find the right answer (even admitted that there isn't always one).
This is a really good introductory interview for Bernie.
Has anyone been looking at the polls sense the debate? Tulsi seemed to have done some damage to Kamala. I'd also say the lukewarm reception to those bills she rollout right before the debate hurt as well. Would be pretty funny is Tulsi's biggest impact was helping take down one of the establishment favorites but Harris would likely still end up Biden's VP. So that's a potential two to four terms before we could get a progressive.... not forgetting a likely GOP term or two somewhere in there. So we could easily be talking a decade or two.
Let's try not to do any of that.
Atleast Hillary could rally people up and debate well. Biden is a joke at both imo.
This is a really good introductory interview for Bernie.
Has anyone been looking at the polls sense the debate? Tulsi seemed to have done some damage to Kamala. I'd also say the lukewarm reception to those bills she rollout right before the debate hurt as well. Would be pretty funny is Tulsi's biggest impact was helping take down one of the establishment favorites but Harris would likely still end up Biden's VP. So that's a potential two to four terms before we could get a progressive.... not forgetting a likely GOP term or two somewhere in there. So we could easily be talking a decade or two.
Let's try not to do any of that.
Atleast Hillary could rally people up and debate well. Biden is a joke at both imo.
To be fair he wasn't always like this. He was gaffe prone and has a shitty voting record but he could at least debate. Even when he was blowing his other campaigns he could at least speak in full sentences and stay on topic. We've discussed it in here before but he just doesn't come across as fit for office. He's especially not fit for this time. None of this bodes well for him defeating Trump. This has to be repeated over and over until the dude retires I guess.
Thankfully the Youtube versions don't have ad reads.
I finished listening to the whole thing about an hour ago. It was decent, for a JRE episode it was kind of dry. Hour long episodes are extremely short for JRE standards. But it's understandable, Bernie is a very busy man. You can tell Joe Rogan was taking into account that Bernie only had an hour to be there. It seemed like he wanted to hit a broad range of topics which made the podcast have a more "interview" feel to it rather than just two dudes having a conversation.
I think they've tackled upon every important subject where things need to change in the US; health care, college dept, mass shootings, climate change etc. I don't think it was dry at all because in comparison to the short answer format on television you can actually get to see the views of a politician in a longer format and I think that's great. Ofcourse it's not a debate or a conversation but I don't think that was really the point here and Joe asked some great questions where I think Bernie struggled a few times himself to find the right answer (even admitted that there isn't always one).
Oh yeah compared to tv format this is a thousand times better. That's why I get so frustrated with the televised debates is because they're so primitive and outdated. Just as a podcast junkie an hour is nothing to me. If Bernie had more time they could have gone much deeper into some of these topics. There was this feeling of "okay we spent 15-20 minutes on this subject we got to get to the next thing".
It was super interesting seeing Bernie struggle with certain questions. Not that they're questions with easy answers. But it was just cool to see Bernie on a platform where he can comfortably say "look there isn't always a perfect answer".