I hope Sanders gets elected, or at least listened to. He seems to be intelligent, honest and truly interested in improving society.
Anyone can seem to be intelligent, honest, and truly interested in improving society. The real question is will they improve society?
When someone has been in politics as long as some of the candidates (ie Bernie or Hillary) the question shouldn't be "will" they, it's "have" they. Past behaviour being the best predictor of future behaviour and all.
Putting this here since this is the Bernie Sanders thread. This was his speech at Georgetown today on Democratic Socialism.
Personally I thought it was a great speech.
It's a good read IMHO. He talks a lot about FDR's Economic Bill of Rights and Martin Luther King Jr. He even gets in a little dig at Hillary when says "I'm not running for president because it's my turn".
Until people started engaging you, you dismissed the entire article, informational and editorial content alike, with a one-sentence post -- because apparently the source is too pro-Jewish for you, or something? I don't really know what to say about that except that it seems less like a genuine attempt to engage and scrutinize with the article's content and more like an attempt to echo-chamberize yourself.
Whatever. Yes when I see an article about muslim refugees posted from a source that is well known for posting an abundance of anti-muslim biased articles, I will take it with a heaping grain of salt. But if you don't feel like considering source context is something you want to do then that's your prerogative.
They are not seizing people's place of residences nor are they giving them to other people.
They are not seizing anything, they already own it. They are not giving it to anybody either, they already own it. In the context of Eminent Domain, which was the context of your comment, the idea of seizing property and giving it to someone else has a very specific meaning and this does not fall into that category. If I rent you property and one day I ask you to leave, I'm not seizing your property, I am asking you to leave *my* property.
Don't mix topics, this case has nothing to do with the discussion on Eminent Domain. In this case property is not being seized, the municipality already owns it. The people in the article are renters. And the owner (the municipality) has decided that it needs to re-purpose the building. In both cases they are being given 8-11 months notice to find new places to rent.
Don't mix topics? Are you kidding me? The topic here, as far as I can tell, is Germany appropriating the property of its citizens (whether that property be rented, owned, or otherwise) in order to create more space for refugees. You are correct that ejecting someone who resides in a state-owned building doesn't fall under the specific heading of eminent domain, but it's still completely outrageous. Misuse of eminent domain is one way for a government to violate its citizens' rights, but not the only way.
It's outrageous for a landlord to give someone 8 months notice before they stop renting to them? A landlord, be it the government or a private citizen, is not allowed to ever stop renting? They can never ask their renters to leave? I think it's unfortunate that this person has to leave a building where she has been renting for 16 years, but I would hardly call it outrageous.
Before I even open that link I have a feeling I know what it will say seeing as it's Gatestone Institute. Hint: Gatestone is nothing but pro-Israel propaganda mouthpiece.
Friendly reminder: not only is rejecting information based on its source an ad hominem fallacy -- if you do it too often, you will wind up encasing yourself in an impenetrable echo chamber that the truth can never enter. That article has a dozen citations to press outlets of record in Germany sourcing its claims. And at least on my reading, it contains nothing that could possibly be construed as "pro-Israel propaganda."
And I also have a friendly reminder for you: articles like this are more than just pure information. They are editorialized, they have a particular viewpoint they are conveying about the information presented. Authors have a bias and being aware of that bias (as well as our own bias) helps when interpreting the information being presented to get to the truth. At no point has any of the *information* presented been rejected, what I reject is the editorializing and the way in which it is being presented.
It's citations include what appears to be a story posted by a random user on a german web forum. That would be the story about a "lazy" young muslim man who wouldn't get up to help an elderly german volunteer carry a table. Is that unbiased journalism? Or is that "information" included to support a particular narrative that the author is trying to use to persuade people? As for "pro-Israel propaganda", it should be obvious that any opportunity in which Muslims can be demonized to the western world is a positive for certain groups in Israel and the west.
Taking someone's place of residence and giving it to another person isn't like that. There's no public benefit at all -- in fact the only person who benefits is the new resident. This case is much closer to theft at gunpoint than it is to a valid use of eminent domain in the overwhelming public interest.
They are not seizing people's place of residences nor are they giving them to other people. They are seizing unoccupied, commercial and industrial buildings (ie not someone's place of residence) and using them as emergency shelters (ie not giving them to another person).
This article, which is cited by the Gatestone piece, and which you will note is sourced from a German paper of record, says that, at least in this particular building in Nieheim, existing tenants are being evicted from their residences.
Don't mix topics, this case has nothing to do with the discussion on Eminent Domain. In this case property is not being seized, the municipality already owns it. The people in the article are renters. And the owner (the municipality) has decided that it needs to re-purpose the building. In both cases they are being given 8-11 months notice to find new places to rent.
the one with the best shot there might actually be Trump especially if Clinton wins the DNC nomination.
What.
What is confusing? I think Clinton would crush Rubio, Kasich, or Cruz like a grape, not even a contest. Trump on the other hand, while I would never want to see him as president and believe he's a horrible candidate, I think would actually have a non-zero chance of beating Hillary. Not a good chance of course (maybe like 10% if I had to put an actual number to it), but a chance, which is more than the others have.
The later stages of the primary will essentially come down to Trump, Cruz, and either Rubio or Kasich once one of them gets selected to get all the Kochbux, with the possibility of Trump being eliminated early based on how stupid he is in the meantime. None of them stand a chance in the general except maybe Kasich, but I don't see that happening because of how bat***** insane the Tea Party has become.
I agree with your assessment. At this point it looks likely to come down to Cruz vs Rubio or Kasich, and if he hasn't imploded yet, Trump.
Rubio or Kasich seem like the most sane choices, but God help us all if Cruz actually wins. I don't think any stand much chance in the general election, but incredibly the one with the best shot there might actually be Trump especially if Clinton wins the DNC nomination.
Other countries aren't taking in more migrants for good reason. Eastern European and Arab countries know the migrants won't integrate with their societies so they don't want to put up with huge culture shock.
Not all Arab countries know this apparently since the countries who have taken the most refugees are Arab countries.
Before I even open that link I have a feeling I know what it will say seeing as it's Gatestone Institute. Hint: Gatestone is nothing but pro-Israel propaganda mouthpiece.
Edit: Eminent Domain. Essentially, the idea that crown/government has the right to take your land to serve the greater good (and pays you for it). It's law in Germany and pretty much everywhere else. It gets used here all the time for things like highways (and sometimes much worse) for instance. In this case the German government is using it to force landlords to house refugees. In the article they even mention that the buildings were vacant. But this website makes it sound like it's the second coming of the Gestapo.
Unless the bottom rung of candidates see jumps in support, I anticipate we'll see some candidates leave the race after this.
I unfortunately didn't see a lot of it, but I've been trying to follow the coverage as much as I can.
Seems to be that Fiorina, Rand Paul, and Jeb lost ground. I would not be surprised to see Fiorina and/or Rand drop out soon. Consensus seems to be building that Rubio (maybe Kasich) are going to be the choice that establishment Republicans line up behind. Whatever else you think of Rubio he at least proved that he has some good handlers/strategists on his team. They knew his senate record was in the news this week and not only was he prepared with a response, but he was prepared with a response specifically if he was attacked by Jeb, and it worked.
Ted Cruz (blech) seems to be gaining a lot of support to represent the non-establishment side of things, I can only assume that this is because Trump and Carson have just said too many dumb things for any rational person to actually take them seriously as candidates. Christie seemed to help himself a bit. Huckabee should really just go away, you're not going to win an election running as the ultra-religious candidate.
Biden decided not to run. Great news for Hilary. For Sanders it's a mixed bag. On the one hand, Sanders is now pretty much the only contender against Hilary. On the other hand, Sanders is now pretty much the only contender against Hilary.
People looking for an alternative to Hilary would flock to Biden. The same will most likely not be said of Sanders.
We'll see. Either way we should at least get a much clearer picture now that all the polls should stop including Biden in them. The best news for Sanders is that it should mean he gets solid media exposure everywhere and a chance to really communicate his message.
So it's finally happening. Trump has committed the unforgivable sin (as far as Republican establishment is concerned) he has gone against their narrative on 9/11 and openly criticized a former Republican president. Not only saying it happened on Bush's watch (which it did), but now is saying Bush knew about it, that the CIA warned him it was coming, and he didn't stop it. Not coincidentally he's also torpedoing Jeb's campaign in the process, and Jeb is falling for it hook, line, and sinker.
We always knew the GOP didn't really like Trump, that it only accepted him into the race to prevent him from running as an independent, and I don't think they really believed he would last this long. I expect the GOP is now going to launch a full out assault on Trump at any time.
It will be interesting to see how he responds once they really start hitting him or if he will fold. Personally, I expect it will be the end of his campaign. I don't think he stands up to scrutiny very well, and I don't think he really wants to be president so badly that he will be willing to endure the criticism from the right.
Personally I thought it was a great speech.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slkQohGDQCI&feature=youtu.be&t=16m11s
http://www.vox.com/2015/11/19/9762028/bernie-sanders-democratic-socialism
It's a good read IMHO. He talks a lot about FDR's Economic Bill of Rights and Martin Luther King Jr. He even gets in a little dig at Hillary when says "I'm not running for president because it's my turn".
edit: Or watch it here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slkQohGDQCI&feature=youtu.be&t=16m11s
For a guy who had almost no support, never had any chance, and is honestly kind of a joke, I'm surprised he hung around so long.
Whatever. Yes when I see an article about muslim refugees posted from a source that is well known for posting an abundance of anti-muslim biased articles, I will take it with a heaping grain of salt. But if you don't feel like considering source context is something you want to do then that's your prerogative.
They are not seizing anything, they already own it. They are not giving it to anybody either, they already own it. In the context of Eminent Domain, which was the context of your comment, the idea of seizing property and giving it to someone else has a very specific meaning and this does not fall into that category. If I rent you property and one day I ask you to leave, I'm not seizing your property, I am asking you to leave *my* property.
It's outrageous for a landlord to give someone 8 months notice before they stop renting to them? A landlord, be it the government or a private citizen, is not allowed to ever stop renting? They can never ask their renters to leave? I think it's unfortunate that this person has to leave a building where she has been renting for 16 years, but I would hardly call it outrageous.
And I also have a friendly reminder for you: articles like this are more than just pure information. They are editorialized, they have a particular viewpoint they are conveying about the information presented. Authors have a bias and being aware of that bias (as well as our own bias) helps when interpreting the information being presented to get to the truth. At no point has any of the *information* presented been rejected, what I reject is the editorializing and the way in which it is being presented.
It's citations include what appears to be a story posted by a random user on a german web forum. That would be the story about a "lazy" young muslim man who wouldn't get up to help an elderly german volunteer carry a table. Is that unbiased journalism? Or is that "information" included to support a particular narrative that the author is trying to use to persuade people? As for "pro-Israel propaganda", it should be obvious that any opportunity in which Muslims can be demonized to the western world is a positive for certain groups in Israel and the west.
They are not seizing people's place of residences nor are they giving them to other people. They are seizing unoccupied, commercial and industrial buildings (ie not someone's place of residence) and using them as emergency shelters (ie not giving them to another person).
Don't mix topics, this case has nothing to do with the discussion on Eminent Domain. In this case property is not being seized, the municipality already owns it. The people in the article are renters. And the owner (the municipality) has decided that it needs to re-purpose the building. In both cases they are being given 8-11 months notice to find new places to rent.
What is confusing? I think Clinton would crush Rubio, Kasich, or Cruz like a grape, not even a contest. Trump on the other hand, while I would never want to see him as president and believe he's a horrible candidate, I think would actually have a non-zero chance of beating Hillary. Not a good chance of course (maybe like 10% if I had to put an actual number to it), but a chance, which is more than the others have.
I agree with your assessment. At this point it looks likely to come down to Cruz vs Rubio or Kasich, and if he hasn't imploded yet, Trump.
Rubio or Kasich seem like the most sane choices, but God help us all if Cruz actually wins. I don't think any stand much chance in the general election, but incredibly the one with the best shot there might actually be Trump especially if Clinton wins the DNC nomination.
Not all Arab countries know this apparently since the countries who have taken the most refugees are Arab countries.
Edit: Eminent Domain. Essentially, the idea that crown/government has the right to take your land to serve the greater good (and pays you for it). It's law in Germany and pretty much everywhere else. It gets used here all the time for things like highways (and sometimes much worse) for instance. In this case the German government is using it to force landlords to house refugees. In the article they even mention that the buildings were vacant. But this website makes it sound like it's the second coming of the Gestapo.
I unfortunately didn't see a lot of it, but I've been trying to follow the coverage as much as I can.
Seems to be that Fiorina, Rand Paul, and Jeb lost ground. I would not be surprised to see Fiorina and/or Rand drop out soon. Consensus seems to be building that Rubio (maybe Kasich) are going to be the choice that establishment Republicans line up behind. Whatever else you think of Rubio he at least proved that he has some good handlers/strategists on his team. They knew his senate record was in the news this week and not only was he prepared with a response, but he was prepared with a response specifically if he was attacked by Jeb, and it worked.
Ted Cruz (blech) seems to be gaining a lot of support to represent the non-establishment side of things, I can only assume that this is because Trump and Carson have just said too many dumb things for any rational person to actually take them seriously as candidates. Christie seemed to help himself a bit. Huckabee should really just go away, you're not going to win an election running as the ultra-religious candidate.
And there we go, Lincoln Chafee now officially out.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/23/politics/lincoln-chafee-2016-election-dnc-meeting/index.html
We'll see. Either way we should at least get a much clearer picture now that all the polls should stop including Biden in them. The best news for Sanders is that it should mean he gets solid media exposure everywhere and a chance to really communicate his message.
We always knew the GOP didn't really like Trump, that it only accepted him into the race to prevent him from running as an independent, and I don't think they really believed he would last this long. I expect the GOP is now going to launch a full out assault on Trump at any time.
It will be interesting to see how he responds once they really start hitting him or if he will fold. Personally, I expect it will be the end of his campaign. I don't think he stands up to scrutiny very well, and I don't think he really wants to be president so badly that he will be willing to endure the criticism from the right.
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/10/webb-dropping-out-214952