Tag Archives: mexico

Here’s a Better Answer to Donald Trump’s Supporters

by JohnathanIsaacso Posted on December 20, 2015

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Tonight’s Democratic debate featured a short exchange about Donald Trump:

MUIR: You have weighed in already on Donald Trump….What would you say to the millions of Americans watching tonight who agree with him? Are they wrong?

HILLARY CLINTON: Well I think a lot of people are understandably reacting out of fear and anxiety about what they’re seeing….Mr. Trump has a great capacity to use bluster and bigotry to inflame people and to make think there are easy answers to very complex questions.

I suppose this is the “right” answer in some sense, but if you take seriously the framing of the question—what would you say to Trump’s supporters?—it’s condescending and offensive. You’re telling them that they only support Trump because they’re scared, not because they have legitimate beefs. That’s not likely to win many converts.

I’m a little surprised that no one has taken the approach toward Trump that strikes me as having a better chance of success. Basically it has two parts:

#1: Trump is a mediocre businessman. He talks big about his golf resorts, but they don’t make a lot of money. His casinos in Atlantic City went bankrupt because he managed them poorly and didn’t understand the business. He doesn’t have a lavish property empire. He’s built or renovated half a dozen major buildings, and they’ve done OK but nothing more than that. There’s no evidence that he negotiates especially great deals, just fairly routine ones. He’s thin-skinned and goes to court—or threatens to—over every perceived slight. Basically, Trump inherited a lot of wealth and hasn’t done all that much with it. Someone should ask him to show us financial statements for his development business. Not licensing and TV. Just development. How much have earnings increased over the past decade? What’s his return on equity? Return on investment? Etc.

#2: Trump is a blowhard, and we all know blowhards, right? They BS constantly because they don’t know squat. They talk big and they never deliver. That’s Trump. What makes anyone think he’ll deliver on all the BS he’s ladling out right now?

Trump has built two successful businesses based on being a blowhard. He has a nice licensing business, and he made a nice chunk of change from The Apprentice. That’s about it. In every business that required him to actually deliver something concrete, he’s been average or worse.

Trump has built his campaign on the proposition that he’s a great builder and a great negotiator, and for some reason his opponents have all let that slide. I don’t really understand why. Take away his mouth and he’s just another guy who inherited a bunch of money from his father and used it to build a middling business. It’s nothing to be ashamed of, but it hardly makes him a dazzling executive, either.

Jump to original: 

Here’s a Better Answer to Donald Trump’s Supporters

Posted in bigo, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Here’s a Better Answer to Donald Trump’s Supporters

No Debate Liveblogging Tonight

by epxxatlw Posted on December 20, 2015

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Sorry. I’m debated out. If anything interesting happens, I’ll write about it afterward. In the meantime, consider this an open debate thread.

See more here – 

No Debate Liveblogging Tonight

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on No Debate Liveblogging Tonight

Friday Cat Blogging – 18 December 2015

by Tyree1784qgtrvr Posted on December 18, 2015

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

A couple of months ago, Kendrick Brinson came over to take pictures of me for the current issue of MoJo. Kendrick is a cat person, so while she was snapping away she snapped some pictures of the cats as well. She very nicely told me I was welcome to use one for catblogging, so today you get a first: the first professional photograph ever featured on Friday Catblogging. Isn’t Hilbert handsome?

But what about Hopper? Well, she mostly ran away, so we have no pictures of her. Hilbert, by contrast, followed us around the house and preened for the camera like a pro. This is his reward.

Read the article: 

Friday Cat Blogging – 18 December 2015

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Friday Cat Blogging – 18 December 2015

New Poll Breaks Record For Honest Answers

by HenrietXfr Posted on December 18, 2015

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

In my Twitter feed, everyone is getting a big kick out of the question on the right from a recent PPP national poll of Republicans. Agrabah, it turns out, is the fictional city where Aladdin lives in the 1992 Disney cartoon. I’ve never seen the movie, so I didn’t know this before today.

Anyway, as much as I applaud PPP for turning their polls into a continuing series of jokes, I think people are taking the wrong lesson from this. Is it shocking that 30 percent of Republicans want to bomb a city they’ve never heard of? Not really. Maybe they confused it with Ar Raqqah, the ISIS capital. Maybe this was just a way of showing that they support a stronger bombing campaign in general. Who knows?

No, the big news here is that 57 percent admitted they weren’t sure. This is amazing. In polls like this, “Not Sure” usually gets about 10 percent, even for questions that it’s dead certain most people have no clue about. Overall, this poll question demonstrates an admirable ability to admit ignorance. That’s far less common than you might think.

See original: 

New Poll Breaks Record For Honest Answers

Posted in Everyone, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on New Poll Breaks Record For Honest Answers

We Are Being Tested By God. We’re Failing.

by MirandaI21 Posted on December 18, 2015

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Oh come on, now he’s just trolling us for sure:

Brzezinski: Do you like Vladimir Putin’s comments about you?

Trump: Sure. When people call you brilliant, it’s always good, especially when the person heads up Russia.

Scarborough: Well, I mean, also, it’s a person that kills journalists, political opponents, and invades countries. Obviously, that would be a concern, would it not?

Trump: He’s running his country, and at least he’s a leader, you know, unlike what we have in this country.

Scarborough: Yeah. But, again, he kills journalists that don’t agree with him.

Trump: Well, I think our country does plenty of killing also, Joe, you know.

Scarborough: What do you mean by that?

Trump: There’s a lot of stupidity going on in the world right now, Joe. A lot of killing going on. A lot of stupidity. And that’s the way it is. But you didn’t ask me the question. You asked me a different question. So that’s fine.

“Joseph Kony? Bad guy, no doubt about it. But at least he’s a Christian, unlike what we have now. And a tough guy too, a leader. He knows what he wants and he’s willing to fight for it.”

This is turning into a bad Mel Brooks film.

Continue at source: 

We Are Being Tested By God. We’re Failing.

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on We Are Being Tested By God. We’re Failing.

Why Is WhatsApp Refusing to Comply With a Valid Warrant?

by JustineBallou Posted on December 17, 2015

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

On Wednesday, a judge in Brazil ordered the temporary suspension of WhatsApp, a popular Facebook messaging app. Everyone went nuts. Mark Zuckerberg said he was “stunned.” The CEO of WhatsApp said it was “sad to see Brazil isolate itself from the rest of the world.” Users moved in droves to another messaging app.

Today, another judge lifted the ban because “it does not seem reasonable that millions of users are affected” over a tiff between WhatsApp and a judge.

Fair enough. The first judge pretty clearly overreacted. But apparently this whole thing started because the judge wanted access to messages from a suspect in a drug trafficking trial. The judge issued legal warrants several months ago, but What’sApp refused to comply.

Does WhatsApp have a response to this? Do they think the warrant is invalid? Do they think they don’t have to respond to warrants? Or what? I’m generally opposed to governments hoovering up messages and phone calls without a warrant, but if there’s a warrant in a legitimate criminal case, then you have to turn things over. What am I missing?

Continue reading:

Why Is WhatsApp Refusing to Comply With a Valid Warrant?

Posted in Everyone, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Why Is WhatsApp Refusing to Comply With a Valid Warrant?

How Old Should Kids Be Before They’re Allowed to Play in the Front Yard on Their Own?

by MahaliaGruner Posted on December 17, 2015

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Pew Research routinely comes out with long, detailed surveys of interesting things, and I usually thumb through them looking for intriguing tidbits. Today it’s “Parenting in America,” and you’ll be unsurprised to learn that middle-class parents generally have a more positive view of things than poor parents. I may have more to say about this later, but in the meantime here’s a tidbit that answers a question I’ve pondered more than once: how old should kids be before they’re allowed to do stuff on their own?

I don’t know how this has changed over time, but these figures sure seem strange. I played on my own in front of my house when I was five,1 but today’s parents think you need to be 10—and a substantial fraction think you need to be over 12 to play in front of the house unsupervised.

Ditto for the others. I suppose 12 isn’t unreasonable for staying home alone, but again, a substantial fraction think you need to be 14 or 15 or even 18.

As for public parks, holy cow. The average age for allowing kids to play in a park without adult supervision is 14, and there’s a substantial fraction who think you literally have to be an adult yourself before you should be allowed to go to a park on your own.

Unsurprisingly, Pew says that the answers are correlated with income, which is correlated with the kind of neighborhood you live in. If you live in a safe neighborhood, the average age for playing in front of the house is 9. If you live in a poor neighborhood, it’s 11. This makes sense.

Still, the overall numbers sure strike me as high. Of course, I’ve led a sheltered existence, so maybe I just don’t get it. But the world is a safer place than it was 30 years ago. Do kids really need to be ten just to play in the front yard these days?

1I called my mother to confirm this. She did.

Credit – 

How Old Should Kids Be Before They’re Allowed to Play in the Front Yard on Their Own?

Posted in alo, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Safer, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on How Old Should Kids Be Before They’re Allowed to Play in the Front Yard on Their Own?

Strike Two For Pair of New York Times Reporters

by EdmundoGutierre Posted on December 17, 2015

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Today, FBI director James Comey said that the San Bernardino shooters never talked openly about violent jihadism on social media: “So far, in this investigation we have found no evidence of posting on social media by either of them at that period in time and thereafter reflecting their commitment to jihad or to martyrdom. I’ve seen some reporting on that, and that’s a garble.”

So where did this notion come from, anyway? The answer is a New York Times story on Sunday headlined “U.S. Visa Process Missed San Bernardino Wife’s Zealotry on Social Media.” It told us that Tashfeen Malik “talked openly” on social media about jihad and that, “Had the authorities found the posts years ago, they might have kept her out of the country.” The story was written by Matt Apuzzo, Michael Schmidt, and Julia Preston.

Do those names sound familiar? They should. The first two were also the authors of July’s epic fail claiming that Hillary Clinton was the target of a criminal probe over the mishandling of classified information in her private email system. In the end, virtually everything about the story turned out to be wrong. Clinton was not a target. The referral was not criminal. The emails in question had not been classified at the time Clinton saw them.

Assuming Comey is telling the truth, that’s two strikes. Schmidt and Apuzzo either have some bad sources somewhere, or else they have one really bad source somewhere. And coincidentally or not, their source(s) have provided them with two dramatic but untrue scoops that make prominent Democrats look either corrupt or incompetent. For the time being, Schmidt and Apuzzo should be considered on probation. That’s at least one big mistake too many.

See original article here: 

Strike Two For Pair of New York Times Reporters

Posted in alo, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Presto, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Strike Two For Pair of New York Times Reporters

Did LA Officials Panic Over a Dumb Prank?

by MattSteffey9 Posted on December 15, 2015

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

As you all know by now, schools in Los Angeles were closed today because authorities received a “credible threat” of some kind of attack. So far, all we know is that (a) it came via an email routed through Germany, (b) it contained the word allah un-capitalized, and (c) several other cities, including New York, received the same message. Was it wise to shut down every school in LA over this? Mike O’Hare says no, essentially because the threat strikes him as ridiculous, not credible.

This makes me curious: do we ordinary citizens ever get the chance to evaluate these threats after the fact? I get that it’s sometimes unwise to release a lot of information about events like this, but it also means that we never get to weigh the judgment and common sense of our elected officials. O’Hare thinks the risk that this was a genuine threat is infinitesimal. It seems the same way to me. After all, any half-bright teenager can write an anonymous email and route it through a proxy server somewhere just for laughs. Was there anything more to it than that?

Well, maybe there was, but they’re not telling us. Maybe there really was a good reason to believe this might be a genuine threat.

Or, maybe it was just a prank email and everyone panicked. I don’t live in Los Angeles, but if I were a taxpayer there I’d sure like to know more about this. City officials will almost certainly say they can’t comment further because the FBI is investigating yada yada yada, but I suspect they just don’t want to admit that they panicked over a dubious threat. I wonder if we’ll ever be allowed to know?

See original article here:

Did LA Officials Panic Over a Dumb Prank?

Posted in Citizen, Everyone, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Did LA Officials Panic Over a Dumb Prank?

Republicans Have Been Pretty Quiet About the Big Climate Deal. Is That About to Change?

by AlejandNona Posted on December 15, 2015

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

This story originally appeared in The New Republic and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.

In the wake of the two-week climate conference in Paris, at which 195 countries agreed to significantly curb carbon emissions, the world has moved on to the question of how to implement such an ambitious plan. The fifth Republican presidential debate Tuesday night, however, will move in its own orbit. When Republicans have talked about climate change, it hasn’t been to propose solutions, but to raise doubt over the role humans play in cooking the planet and to dismiss the idea that we should do something about it.

Paris should come up in the debate, if only for the sake of asking Republicans how they plan on handling the international backlash to their proposal to pull out of the deal. Every one of America’s allies has worked hard to see this deal come to fruition. How does a Republican president plan on leading the world if he insists we should be the only nation to stand on the sidelines?

That question needs to be raised, because we haven’t seen a thorough treatment of the subject yet. In fact, the presidential field has so far been surprisingly quiet on the outcome of Paris. John Kasich’s campaign was the only one to put out a statement about it. “While the governor believes that climate change is real and that human activity contributes to it, he has serious concerns with an agreement that the Obama administration deliberately crafted to avoid having to submit it to the Senate for approval,” Rob Nichols, a Kasich spokesman, said. “That’s an obvious indicator that they expect it to result in significant job loss and inflict further damage to our already sluggish economy.”

Check out Climate Desk’s ultimate guide to the presidential candidates’ positions on climate change

Some read this as a good sign. Maybe Republicans aren’t as willing to jump on Paris, because they realize climate denial won’t work in their favor. One theory is that Paris foretells an inevitable recalibration of the conventional Republican approach to science denial. “I think Republicans will have to continue to fight over fossil fuels and defend that industry in a more technical way,” said John Coequyt, the Sierra Club’s international climate campaigner, according to The Guardian. “They will be less able to fight over climate change than they were before, and they will retreat in a process fight over defending the coal industry and the oil and gas industry.” President Barack Obama suggested that a Republican successor couldn’t continue to deny what every ally accepts as fact. “Your credibility and America’s ability to influence events depends on taking seriously what other countries care about,” he said in Paris. “I think the president of the United States is going to need to think this is really important.”

He certainly wants this to be true, because the next president holds Obama’s climate legacy in his or her hands. A Republican president could undo all of this administration’s hard work, and it’s possible to imagine the fragile support for an international framework coming down.

Unfortunately, it’s wildly optimistic to think Republicans will bend to international pressure, especially during primary season. Donald Trump hasn’t minded offending the rest of the world his disparaging comments about Muslims and Hispanics. Trump simply canceled his planned trip to Israel when the prime minister condemned him, and he surged in the polls this summer after Mexico’s president condemned his discriminatory remarks about immigrants. International expectations are the last of the GOP’s concerns right now, climate change included.

Even if the subject gets extra attention on Tuesday, Republicans will likely repeat the same lines we’ve heard for so long, regardless of the changing international circumstances.

“America is not a planet,” Senator Marco Rubio has said to justify repealing Obama’s power plant regulations, even though the Paris deal actually does cover most of the planet.

And you might hear something like this from Senator Ted Cruz, now polling second in Iowa: In an interview with NPR last week, Cruz insisted climate change was a result of “liberal politicians who want government power over the economy, the energy sector, and every aspect of our lives.” Pressed further to explain why he thinks almost all the nations of the world have joined in this endeavor, Cruz just changed the subject.

Cruz doesn’t shy away form outright science denial, as many of his fellow contenders have. But if he’s going to insist that global warming isn’t occurring, he should also say how he proposes to move the United States in the opposite direction from the rest of the world.

Taken from:

Republicans Have Been Pretty Quiet About the Big Climate Deal. Is That About to Change?

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Ultima, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Republicans Have Been Pretty Quiet About the Big Climate Deal. Is That About to Change?