Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
The Resistance: Actvism, protests and more! The Resistance: Actvism, protests and more!

01-23-2017 , 05:20 AM
It can be funny as well.
01-23-2017 , 05:47 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzzer99
...

The same people who want to blame Madonna for Trump...
Goddamit it was that controversial Like A Prayer video with Leon.
01-23-2017 , 07:48 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by zikzak
We need to be back out in the streets. The resistance needs to be on the front page and at the top of the news hour every week. As soon as we slip and get complacent we lose public attention, and the GOP Congress can get away with whatever they want.

I'm hoping something comes together in the next couple weeks or so. Otherwise the energy will quickly fade and the situation will be normalized. I'm not sure what it's going to take. Weekly marches on the White House? Daily picketing of Trump Tower? Occupations? It has to be enough to stay in the news and keep the pressure on.

The pipeline protest seems like a nice placeholder, but it's not exactly targeted at the right thing. The one thing we do have going in our favor is Trump's miraculous ability to constantly generate controversy and alarm the ever living **** out of people.

All in all, I can't say I'm optimistic, but I do have a good idea of what I think is necessary, and I'm ready to do my part.
Moral Monday in North Carolina seems like it would be a great model to start with.
01-23-2017 , 09:16 AM
Moral Monday is an excellent example and I totally agree with people saying we should be out in the streets. I'm an "all of the above" guy myself, but above all do something. Doing something is always better than doing nothing. One thing you can do is just meet people in real life and have civil conversations with them where you express a factual and rational viewpoint of the economy and Trump. It's something that they're not necessarily exposed to at all. Relationship building is going to be a big part of this--winning people over in online arguments just doesn't have the same dynamics to it, and will never be a proper substitute for really putting in the hours face to face with people.

Tillerson confirmation vote is today. Let's flood those Senators offices with phone calls. Here's one of many good reasons to vote against Tillerson:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonM..._change_denial
Quote:
Between 1998 and 2004, ExxonMobil granted $16 million to advocacy organizations which disputed the impact of global warming.[53] Of 2005 grantees of ExxonMobil, 54 were found to have statements regarding climate change on their websites, of which 25 were consistent with the scientific consensus on climate change, while 39 "misrepresented the science of climate change by outright denial of the evidence," according to a 2006 letter from the Royal Society to ExxonMobil. The Royal Society said ExxonMobil granted $2.9 million to US organizations which "misinformed the public about climate change through their websites."[54] According to Drexel University environmental sociologist Robert Brulle, ExxonMobil contributed about 4% of the total funding of what Brulle identifies as the "climate change counter-movement."[55] The Drexel research found that much of the funding that direct sourcing from companies like ExxonMobil and Koch Industries was later diverted through third-party foundations like Donors Trust and Donors Capital to avoid traceability.[56] In 2006, the Brussels-based watchdog organization Corporate Europe Observatory said "ExxonMobil invests significant amounts in letting think-tanks, seemingly respectable sources, sow doubts about the need for [European Union] governments to take action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Covert funding for climate sceptics is deeply hypocritical because ExxonMobil spends major sums on advertising to present itself as an environmentally responsible company."[57]

In January 2007, ExxonMobil vice president for public affairs Kenneth Cohen said that, as of 2006, ExxonMobil had ceased funding of the Competitive Enterprise Institute and "'five or six' similar groups".[58] While ExxonMobil did not identify the other similar groups, a May 2007 report by Greenpeace listed five groups "at the heart of the climate change denial industry" ExxonMobil had stopped funding, as well as 41 similar groups which were still receiving ExxonMobil funds.[59]

In May 2008, a week before their annual shareholder's meeting, ExxonMobil pledged in its annual corporate citizenship report that it would cut funding to "several public policy research groups whose position on climate change could divert attention" from the need to address climate change.[60] In 2008, ExxonMobil funded such organizations[61] and was named one of the most prominent promoters of climate change denial.[62] According to Brulle in a 2012 Frontline interview, ExxonMobil had ceased funding the climate change counter-movement by 2009.[55] According to the environmental advocacy group Greenpeace, ExxonMobil granted $1 million to climate denial groups in 2014.[63][64] Scientific American ExxonMobil granted $10,000 to the Science & Environmental Policy Project founded by climate denial advocate, physicist, and environmental scientist Fred Singer[65][66] and earlier funded the work of solar physicist Wei-Hock "Willie" Soon, who said that most global warming is caused by solar variation.[67]
01-23-2017 , 09:35 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by hornbug
So keeping an undemocratic nomination process is fine but having the electoral college is not fine.

It just reinforces the simple truth that this is all about having power. You want your party to be in charge and just give lip service to believing in democracy.
Removing superdelegates won't make the process democratic. Caucuses are un-democratic, they disenfranchise a lot of people. I'd rather we got rid of those.

The simple truth is that a vote once every four years is not the end-all-be-all of democracy. There's the little matter of governing in between presidential elections, not to mention actually staying informed and fighting against callous propaganda and smear campaigns against one of the best we've ever had.
01-23-2017 , 10:20 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul D
How many letters actually find their way into congress(wo)men's desk? I'm going to guess a very low amount.
calling your elected leaders is just as effective and easier/quicker. when the aid picks up the phone, give them your zip code if they don't ask for it (they are trained to ask for it):

this link lists contact information for every Senator:

http://www.senate.gov/senators/contact/

use this link for determining your representative in the House:

http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/

set a monthly calendar reminder to call your Senator and Rep. when the aid picks up i tell them i have 3 or 4 points i want to get across and then patiently list them. the office keeps a tally on the issues/points callers are making.
01-23-2017 , 10:23 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by sylar
This is BS. Hillary was a lifelong democrat, who was registering latinos in Texas in college and working on education and healthcare as First Lady. We should be so lucky that a candidate like that is forced down our throats once every four or eight years. It's on the rest of us democrats to figure out how to win local and state elections, and actually deliver progressive policies to the working class, rather than letting republicans block it.
to the contrary. the Dem superdelegate structure in its current form goes against the very concept of democracy. i'm alarmed you don't see this.
01-23-2017 , 10:27 AM
I seriously wonder how burned out these people are going to be in 3 years. They'll teally have to turn to the coffee drugs and energy drinks to get them to push through the summer and fall of 2020, especially if the race is close or Trump is leading it
01-23-2017 , 10:28 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by einbert
Thanks! So apparently there is an organized effort going on to keep track of which companies to boycott (and which to support) through #GrabYourWallet on twitter.



https://twitter.com/hashtag/grabyourwallet



It's something to keep an eye on for sure.


Lol. Trump breathes oxygen. BOYCOTT OXYGEN!!!
01-23-2017 , 10:40 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by EddyB66
Lol. Trump breathes oxygen. BOYCOTT OXYGEN!!!
Pretty sure he extracts it from the water in his sleep chamber where he tweets at night.

Breaths it haha y'right
01-23-2017 , 10:45 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ligastar
to the contrary. the Dem superdelegate structure in its current form goes against the very concept of democracy. i'm alarmed you don't see this.
Give me one example of a perfectly democratic organization to your liking? Does one exist?

If you look closely enough, in every situation some people have more sway, set the agenda, or count for more votes. That's by design because you have to REWARD the people for actually being there every day rather than once in an election year. Otherwise there's no incentives to keep in touch with the party. You can't have a serious political movement on fanatical ideology alone. You need people who come to the office every day and deal with aspects of government the public can never fully grasp or even have attention for.

Regardless, if you believe the system is undemocratic, that has nothing to do with HRC's nomination. She was deserving of it as much as bernie, if not more, even if harry reid didn't tip the scales in Nevada. It troubles me that you don't see that. Developing a chip on your shoulder because you feel slighted in some way while ignoring that both candidates agree on 99% of policy is how you end having nothing of what you want.
01-23-2017 , 10:56 AM
What fanatical ideology?
01-23-2017 , 10:58 AM
I do love the deflection of people telling other people their behavior is why they voted for trump. It is the ultimate shirking of responsibility and manages to demonstrate they had no legitimate reasons to vote for him.
01-23-2017 , 11:02 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by microbet
What fanatical ideology?
I'm saying your leaders are not just going to be people fueled by unwavering belief in the purest democracy. They should be professionals, they should know how governments actually work, which isn't democratic on a day to day basis, and you should trust their judgement on such matters, while they are pushing progressive agenda you are interested in.
01-23-2017 , 11:07 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by sylar
I'm saying your leaders are not just going to be people fueled by unwavering belief in the purest democracy. They should be professionals, they should know how governments actually work, which isn't democratic on a day to day basis, and you should trust their judgement on such matters, while they are pushing progressive agenda you are interested in.
So by 'fanatical ideology' you meant 'progressive agenda'?
01-23-2017 , 11:16 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by markksman
Pretty sure he extracts it from the water in his sleep chamber where he tweets at night.

Breaths it haha y'right
lol good point.
01-23-2017 , 11:19 AM
And I'm not really clear on how a relatively small percentage of delegates not being bound to follow a popular vote equates to leaders having or not having an unwavering belief in pure democracy. Is 85% democracy what we need?

I do agree that more of the government should be run by professionals though. Having thousands of political appointees is absurd. Politicians reach down 4 or 5 levels into the org chart and that should be cut to 2 or 3 imo.
01-23-2017 , 12:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by microbet
So by 'fanatical ideology' you meant 'progressive agenda'?
No. the agenda of what I want accomplished at the legislative level is not the fanaticism of "bernie or bust", "superdelegates are the opposite of democracy", or "either we win or it's time for revolution".
01-23-2017 , 12:29 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ligastar
to the contrary. the Dem superdelegate structure in its current form goes against the very concept of democracy. i'm alarmed you don't see this.
The democratic party is still a political party and not whatever you think it is. Complaining that it goes against the concept of a democracy is silly because no one expects it to work the way you think it should.
01-23-2017 , 01:03 PM
Oh yeah, speaking about what folks can do NOW...

There are over 200 peeps facing felony charges in DC. If they are convicted and sent off to prison for years... there goes our effective right to assemble and speak right out the window. This heinous overcharging is unprecedented. A line has been drawn on the street. Civil society needs to cross that line en mass.



The so-called justice system is incredibly fragile. It can be disrupted quite easily using NVDA. One very successful tactic is bankrupting the jurisdiction. Think 200 show trails each costing upwards of $1M each because of added security. Ain't going to happen... big government will wilt under that kind of financial pressure.

These upcoming show trials need to be disrupted. If they aren't... well I'm an optimist, so I won't say we are all doomed. But just because I won't say it, doesn't make it false.

ETA: Not sure if I have a good source, but it seems there were 69 jury trails in DC in 2014. IIRC in the state of WA there were ~200 a year c.1999. There were ~600 victims of mass arrest from the WTO protests insisting on their right to a speedy and individual jury trial within 30 days. Big government punted, and everybody walked.

Last edited by Shame Trolly !!!1!; 01-23-2017 at 01:15 PM.
01-23-2017 , 01:16 PM
So I just mis-posted this in the "Post here whenever Trump makes America greaterest again" thread, or whatever, so the first part of th ebelow relates to a derailment in there about the affordability of housing.

The second part is topical here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CPHoya
This affordability conversation is an enormous derailment of the topic of this thread. And its one in which both "sides" are making good points. No, having 20% down is not a prerequisite to being able to "afford" a home. What's more, having 20% down to "afford" a home is a financial lark for virtually any < $50,000 / year home buyer who does not have alternative assistance. Thus, the "left" will always cry foul / racism about enforcement of policies that purport to require 20% down before people can purchase a home - they have to, because they believe the opportunities to come up with 20% down payments are specifically and intentionally denied to minorities, lower-educated and poorer Americans. Which is funny, by the way, because that's the narrative Trump campaigned on, he just didn't call it liberal.

On the other hand, yes, paying less down necessarily increases lender risk, and if the lender happens to be the U.S. government that risk is necessarily then spread throughout the tax-paying public. It is not illogical to object to financing risk premiums for other people when the risks are essentially known. And even further, we have very recently seen that improperly-financed and improperly-regulated mortgage practices can result in economic externalities that threaten to cripple our entire economy and therefore require massive expenditures of tax dollars in what amounts to wealth transfer away from tax payers and simultaneously the offloading of the speculative risk from the risk-prone unqualified home buyers to everyone else. One can easily understand why tax payers object to freeroll housing speculation for someone else's undeserved gain.

Now, having stated both sides rather fairly, I must make this observation: the argument is at this point just a values argument - do you value housing opportunity for the poor more than you value tax payer security from speculative risk, or not?

Why is anyone engaged in a VALUES argument getting this riled up? You guys think different things matter more. That is not necessarily racist, or bad, or good, or anything else.

+++++ NEW TOPIC


Anyway, eventually incoming is an enormous post about individual standing in actions to enforce law against Congress or enforce law against the government, per request of Noodle and goofy.

CLIFFS: You only have standing if you have standing, so to speak, and if you don't you don't. Usually, you don't have standing to sue the government to enforce or enjoin government action, and the doctrine of standing in cases of that type has been significantly narrowed since the civil rights era.

That said, one of the strategies to manufacture standing is to manufacture cases out of "disputes" that are real, but carefully cultivated.

For example, imagine a state like California enforces some Trump-era regulation with the full intent of cooperating with a carefully selected plaintiff who sues, arguing that the regulation is unconstitutional. This plaintiff will be a sympathetic and telegenic individual, and the enforcement of the regulation will be in order to CREATE standing so that the individual has standing to sue about the regulation, with the implicit support of the State of California. The State of California will litigate its right to enforce that law against this individual, who will be represented by cause attorneys who will argue the oppositce. The case will wind its way into the Supreme Court by design, and if well selected it stands a decent chance of receiving cert.

This is a time-tested strategy of activist litigation. Lawyers generally will not admit that they select plaintiffs or that they design means by which a choice plaintiff can intentionally be harmed in order to demonstrate the unfairness of law. Many of the most famous civil rights cases originated in this fashion.

Totally unrelated: it is an interesting question whether someone who is currently insured under ACA who loses coverage due to Congressional action or executive order can establish standing because of the harm they suffer from denial of continued insurance without changed circumstances. The choice plaintiff would be - remember, you're selling this to the country - a middle-aged white woman from the Midwest with family income < ~$50,000 who works hard and attends church services reliably, who was diagnosed with cancer while covered under the ACA and who subsequently, after the repeal of ACA, found herself unable to afford either insurance (because preexisting conditions can again disqualify potential insureds) or care.

The above is dirty, and cruel, and takes advantage of her enormous misfortune. That is the game that will have to be played to preserve through law every right and benefit of American citizenship that Trump seeks to cut, gouge, repeal, shred and violate.
01-23-2017 , 01:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jt217
The democratic party is still a political party and not whatever you think it is. Complaining that it goes against the concept of a democracy is silly because no one expects it to work the way you think it should.
You're suggesting that no one expects the Democratic Party to operate without superdelegates?
01-23-2017 , 01:34 PM
Society is breaking down when even bikers can't get respect

01-23-2017 , 01:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jt217
The democratic party is still a political party and not whatever you think it is. Complaining that it goes against the concept of a democracy is silly because no one expects it to work the way you think it should.
not sure what you're trying to get across here.
01-23-2017 , 03:01 PM
Ethics lawyers bringing lawsuits against trump's unconstitutional presidency

      
m