jakelafort

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 700 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #32446

    jakelafort
    Participant

    None of what Robert says about women is an indication that on balance women are not up against it. Suffrage movement should not have even been a thing. Some very tough women in that movement who lost their lives for the cause. Earn less for same work. Proved themselves during WW2 by doing traditional male’s work. In Israel females have to serve in the military. Women may be scarce in engineering because of the expectation that they do not have high science/math aptitudes. I think that is changing however. Women are so much more subject to sexual harassment on the job than men are. Women do more of the SHIT work at hospitals and nursing homes. And if you ever observe closely it is truly shit work and often not very well compensated. Just cuz some blacks have benefited from affirmative action does not mean that the playing field on balance has been equal. I am rambling like Trump does. Ever notice how that guy is incapable of staying on topic and having thought follow logically? Time for coffee here…

    #32412

    jakelafort
    Participant

    It is a truly tough call on who he should have as his VP. Were i advising him i would want to take polls in battleground states. Each choice draws in some undecideds and repels others so it requires a data and a little analysis.

    #32409

    jakelafort
    Participant

    Another point about the right wing speaker in that video is that the historical references are inapposite. The Overton window has changed. It was a different time during civil rights. Americans as a whole are a bit more advanced.

    #32408

    jakelafort
    Participant

    Unseen i am gonna resist analyzing your legal analysis-even after ten years retirement from law i am reluctant to think about it. I have law dreams though and even go through some complex analysis and application of legal formulae.

    Yeah it would be fun to see what Trump does with Bottoms. Bottoms up. Biden down. Low energy Joe can’t get it up, get him out of town.

    #32404

    jakelafort
    Participant

    Yeah Reg, the due process clause does.

    #32401

    jakelafort
    Participant

    I am not buying what he is selling. If riots become too violent and with too much frequency then it is a factor. But in and of itself the police supporting Trump cuts both ways. Police have never been so vilified in US. For the police to support the racist candidate who opposes the advancement of blacks and egalitarianism in general may serve to mobilize the anti-trump vote. And if Trump/Barr up the ante with greater gestapo tactics and use of agents provocateur then an even greater reaction will ensue. But if the US turns into utter chaos..as in prerevolution that might indeed be the ticket to Trump’s reelection party.

    What poll has that guy seen that i have not? Seems like every poll that is reported has Trump losing ground

    #32399

    jakelafort
    Participant

    My understanding is that choice of VP is not usually very important. It is more an issue of not making a bad choice like S. Palin. For the current election is probably has more importance than others. Lets suppose it is 15 percent of the voters who are undecided how much consideration will they give to Biden’s VP?

    One factor is Biden’s apparent cognitive decline. Many will ask if he can not finish his term will the VP be a good president. If you are pandering to Bernie’s followers then ya need Elizabeth Warren perhaps. If you are after the ones who fear the protesters and the seeming radicalization of so many Americans then perhaps Kamala Harris is a good choice but in doing so you lose the progressives. If you are after the BLM movement and especially in getting more young people to vote then a black woman like Bottoms is a good choice. Or maybe Mrs. Obama? It is a tough call.

    #32397

    jakelafort
    Participant

    Unseen i am with you 100 percent on being optimistic about Biden. He has already agreed to work with his old buddy Sanders. And it is clear that the trajectory of history is contra the old reactionary regressive US that is embodied by Trump. The only thing that gives me pause and favors Trump’s reelection is the issue of whether the hard core Bernie supporters will come out in sufficient numbers. I’ve noticed the scuttlebutt in which it is Bernie or go fuck yourself cuz Biden is this and that. Irrational shit from ideologues..

    #32396

    jakelafort
    Participant

    There is very little doubt that our immediate field of vision influences our perception. However that kind of data is akin to anecdotal evidence. Around me i hear vitriol and derision for Trump and his supporters. So that surely influences me. And i acknowledge his core supporters are like the morons we witnessed in the Trump rally video-painfully stupid. His core haters are just as adamant his supporters. So a great many votes are cast in stone.

    So the independents and undecideds will be the difference makers. Trump’s intransigence in handling the pandemic is his undoing. I am sure it is gonna be the number one issue although it is connected to the economy which is typically numero uno issue. By november almost everybody is going to either know or know of people who died of the virus. And it is going to be increasingly clear that our behavior is the determinant of the success of the virus. So the noncommitted voters will have the unpleasant notion of Trump leading his morons to an escalation of an avoidable crisis that he caused. And then of course the idea of universal health care will look even more palatable.

    #32393

    jakelafort
    Participant

    Biden?

    It is almost entirely about Trump. You could have a teddy bear, a soccer ball named Wilson or a lifer and there would be very little drop off in support. Furthermore there is an excellent chance that Biden will be caught up in the progressive zeitgeist and be more active than Obama.

    If anyone is feeling Trump is going to win i am game for a wager.

    #32334

    jakelafort
    Participant

    blows me away to watch elephants paint.
    once again the depth of non human animal to the forefront…

    Genuine Elephant Artwork

    #32327

    jakelafort
    Participant

    The way Davis has reasoned through those issues is precisely the way we as a species do not. If all humans approached issues in the way Davis does we would not be so contemptible, so tribal, so easily led.

    How do we go from the 1 to 5 percent of human population who reason (wild guess) to a majority? How do we go from being infants to being adults?

    #32312

    jakelafort
    Participant

    Davis rightly points out that cancel culture cuts both ways. And if ya think about it that is what happens when groups or institutions have a concentration of power. Powerful Islam and powerful christianity would sooner cut your nuts off, stone ya to death, auto da fe your sorry ass and burn you at the stake as look at ya for saying anything contrary to their doctrine. And there is a very strong tendency among political groups especially as they are newly developing to rail against any expressions that are critical of their agenda.

    I knew Paglia’s family. They were not outspoken. I say that to say absolutely nothing…i just need to hit this pick 3!

    #32311

    jakelafort
    Participant

    Unseen, you linked a vid that includes a snippet of Chomsky chiding a student about speech. I gave the quote. It is a nonsense viewpoint that Chomsky gives. There are so many nuances to take into account. Even our pinnacle A1 political speech can be censored under some circumstances. Sure you can burn a flag as a political statement. But lets suppose you intend to take over the government in a bloody coup and express your intentions or announce that you and your aryan boys are gonna kick some kike and nigger ass at a hate rally. Is that speech sacrosanct?

    Our constitutional rights depend on the circumstances. They are not absolute. The often quoted fire in a theater is irrelevant other than to discard the simplistic notion that speech is never to be censored.

    As another example of the (it depends) nature of constitutional rights, consider free exercise of religion. Supreme court ruled that natives can do peyote as part of their religious rituals even if the peyote is illegal otherwise. But what about one of those religious nuts who wants to let Jesus cure the kid who has some treatable illness but will die without medicine? Nope. It is a balancing of interests. And the stance Chomsky takes is just plain stupid.

    #32294

    jakelafort
    Participant

    “if you’re in favor of freedom of speech you’re in favor of freedom of speech precisely for views you despise.” On first blush it is hard to argue with the notion that one’s discomfort or horror at another’s speech is insufficient basis for censorship. After all we cherish speech as a core value and as an aspect of freedom. Sorry Mister and Mrs. Victorian if you are offended by the speaker. End of analysis?

    NO! Were the delicate sensibilities of the observer/listener the ONLY consideration then it would be easy peezy lemon squeazy-turn the page cuz this shit is easy. Constitutional rights involve balancing of interests. What is the nature of the speech? What interest is being promoted in granting the speech? What danger or risk is there to the PUBLIC in granting the speech.

    There are endless hypotheticals from history or one’s imagination in which the state justifiably censors the speaker. Lets see. A sex trafficker in attempting to kidnap sexually attractive teenage girls is on the street soliciting by promising a new and better life with a home, money and free time. “You ho can fuck good? You come with me and i take you to the promised land baby girl. This here wad of money will be yours. I just take a little test ride on your ass in the back of my van first and then i will show you the good life in your mansion…” So does the state have a right to censor the trafficker’s speech? Or is unabridged speech the answer? It is silly to even analyze this. Yes the balancing of interests justifies the censorship. I could go on an on with instances in which speech is or ought to be censored.

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 700 total)