wanderer

@wanderer@lemmy.world
1 Post – 59 Comments
Joined 1 years ago

The late, legendarily brutal campaign consultant Lee Atwater explains how Republicans can win the vote of racists without sounding racist themselves:

You start out in 1954 by saying, “N*****, n*****, n*****.” By 1968 you can’t say “n*****”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “N*****, n*****.”

https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/exclusive-lee-atwaters-infamous-1981-interview-southern-strategy/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

This is the foundation of the current Republican party. There is nothing redeemable.

Fascist societies rhetorically cast their enemies as "at the same time too strong and too weak". On the one hand, fascists play up the power of certain disfavored elites to encourage in their followers a sense of grievance and humiliation. On the other hand, fascist leaders point to the decadence of those elites as proof of their ultimate feebleness in the face of an overwhelming popular will.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ur-Fascism

It's not a bug, it's a feature.

I am aware of that, considering that the article I linked is a direct response to that claim. If you notice the article you link does not quote Biden, but an anonymous source, and when reporters asked Biden he said: “I don’t have any plans on one term.”

By 'renegotiate brexit' they do not mean in any way that the UK would rejoin the EU. Starmer said the the UK would not rejoin the EU in his lifetime.

1 more...

I suspect that they knew it they would have to correct it, but did it anyway because the lie would be spread more than the correction.

by heavily implying he’d be a one term “caretaker” president

He never said that. Unnamed people that had no authority to say it did, but he and his campaign explicitly said he had no intention of only running one term.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/joe-biden-denies-mulling-term-pledge-elected-president/story?id=67662497

1 more...

The new deaths bring the total reported so far by various countries to 577, according to an AFP tally.

The do cite their source.

At least 60 Jordanians also died, the diplomats said, up from an official tally of 41 given earlier on Tuesday by the Jordanian government.

Do you think it's impossible that 41 people could die, reported on, and then more people die?

The late, legendarily brutal campaign consultant Lee Atwater explains how Republicans can win the vote of racists without sounding racist themselves:
You start out in 1954 by saying, “N*****, n*****, n*****.” By 1968 you can’t say “n*****”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “N*****, n*****.”

https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/exclusive-lee-atwaters-infamous-1981-interview-southern-strategy/

Did you forget what the article is about? Those churches are likely getting kicked out.

The window for this to work would have been before the primaries.

That reminds me of the attitude a lot of Democrats had during 2016 primaries about Trump. “He’s such a horrible candidate, Clinton will definitely win against him. Let’s make sure he wins the primary.”

The secret service exists to prevent counterfeiting US money, as a side job they also protect a few people in government.

Three mirrors. A tri-fold mirror works great.

Or he expects there to be no vacancies, giving him the option to say whatever he thinks might get him votes without ever having to follow through on his promises.

1 more...

Looking beyond the fate of this particular prosecution, the long-term consequences of today’s decision are stark. The Court effectively creates a law-free zone around the President, upsetting the status quo that has existed since the Founding. This new official-acts immunity now “lies about like a loaded weapon” for any President that wishes to place his own interests, his own political survival, or his own financial gain, above the interests of the Nation. Korematsu v. United States, 323 U. S. 214, 246 (1944) (Jackson, J., dissenting). The President of the United States is the most powerful person in the country, and possibly the world. When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in exchange for a pardon? Immune. Immune, immune, immune.

Taken directly from the supreme court ruling.

1 more...

The Phoenicians founded a new city in North Africa and called it 'New City' (Qart Hadasht), we now call it Carthage. The Carthaginians founded a new city in Spain and called it 'New City' (Qart Hadasht). The Romans conquered both of these cities, and found that having cities with the same confusing so called the second one 'New New City' (Carthago Nova).

“No, I never have,” Biden said when asked by a reporter on Wednesday if those discussions were taking place. “I don’t have any plans on one term.”

What do you mean he never corrected anyone? I already provided a link with him and his campaign explicitly saying that he had no intention of only running one term.

It's onanism in English. And it's rather stupid to call it that because Onan didn't masturbate, he used the pull out method to avoid getting his sister-in-law pregnant with his brother's kid. (yes, I know that sounds weird but that's the story)

5 more...

It has the bill of rights but not all constitutional amendments. Among other things, in Trumps bible, slavery is still legal and women can't vote, just the way they want it.

Has there ever been someone that this has happened to twice?

1 more...

We had known that birds are descended from dinosaurs well before the general public and the majority of paleontologists starting saying "birds are dinosaurs". So simply saying that "we discovered that birds are descended from dinosaurs" is not sufficient to answering your question.

Traditional taxonomy allows for paraphyletic groups, meaning that not all of the descendants of the most recent common ancestor of the group are required to be in that group. So in this case, even though it was known that birds are descended from dinosaurs, they continued to be considered two separate groups, with dinosaurs being a paraphyletic group. Birds were known first, dinosaurs were later discovered and were considered a distinct group, then the link between the the two groups was discovered, but how they were grouped did not immediately change. That birds were not considered to be dinosaurs was a rather arbitrary effect based on how they were discovered and not on any scientific basis.

One book on dinosaurs from 1997 wrote:

In a phylogenetic sense, dinosaurs are not extinct, for birds are theropodan descendants (but see Feduccia 1996 for a dissenting view). For the purposes of this review, however, the term dinosaur connotes what cladists might term "non-avian dinosauromorph." We thus (unrepentantly) use a paraphyletic rather than monophyletic (holophyletic) "Dinosauria." Whatever the scientific merits of the latter, the former is widely understood, and avoids such circumlocutions as "non-avian dinosaur."

A later edition of that same book from 2012 not only uses "non-avian dinosaur" extensively, it also has an entire section on birds.

So why the change? There is a trend in science to prefer cladistic classification, which requires every group to be a clade, meaning that all descendants of the most recent common ancestor of a group are in the group. This effectively means that paraphyletic grouping is being abandoned. So with cladistic taxonomy birds are dinosaurs.

There are other traditionally paraphyletic groups that are still in the process of changing. For example traditionally monkeys were a paraphyletic group, but any clade that includes all monkeys necessarily includes the apes, so in cladistics apes are monkeys. Though, you will still hear many people say 'apes are not monkeys'. Fish was also a paraphyletic group, which included all vertebrates except tetrapods, but of course in cladistics, tetrapods are fish.

A guy walks into a bar and he says 'ow'.

The International Astronomical Union (IAU) defined in August 2006 that, in the Solar System, a planet is a celestial body that:

  1. is in orbit around the Sun,
  2. has sufficient mass to assume hydrostatic equilibrium (a nearly round shape), and
  3. has "cleared the neighbourhood" around its orbit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IAU_definition_of_planet

1 more...

So not this, but other things?

Onan's crime was greed not lust. He did not want to provide for Tamar or her potential children.

It is from the link you provided, it was written by a supreme court justice.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/23-939_e2pg.pdf Page 29

We've known that birds were descended from dinosaurs for a long time. Best I can tell, it was first proposed in the 1800's, largely abandoned by the early 1900's and then revived in the 1970's. It was not new information about the lineage of birds that caused us to start saying 'birds are dinosaurs', but a different method of classification: Cladistics.

Your link includes part of Russia.

A not totally incompetent trainer of a dead horse would not be stunned how bad the dead horse does.

How do you know?

The articles I have read only say that the woman saw it outside her house. There was no indication that it had attempted anything other than rummage through garbage. And the police had to travel about 30 km by boat to get there, so the response time couldn't have been quick

Please show me a map of where it was found in relation to places where people live.

Well, another article says it was in Höfðaströnd There are only a few buildings there and spread far apart, so the only relevant person is the one woman.

How do you know this was actually doable?

They attempted it before so they thought it was doable. There was a commission to decide how to handle polar bears in the future and all they said was that it cost too much.

And they should be forced to bear a cost burden they can’t afford?

It didn't say that they couldn't afford it, just that they wouldn't pay for it. (You keep rephrasing things in a way that was not intended to try to make your position stronger. That's called a strawman argument. You should stop that.) And they seem to be getting a lot of complaints from Icelanders that are upset that they killed the bear, so it probably wouldn't be forced, but something that many Icelanders would be willing to pay.

28 more...

Do your own personal Instant Runoff. If you think that the third party candidate might win maybe vote for them. If they are basically guaranteed to lose, maybe vote for your next choice.

Yes, from a superficial viewpoint they are similar. And from a superficial viewpoint shooting a practice target is similar to shooting a person dead. It would be rather stupid to refer to target practice as murder.

2 more...

It is obviously intentionally done to mimic the ritual sacrifice of the two goats on Yom Kippur, the day of atonement. Two goats were presented to the high priest, one was chosen by casting lots to be sacrificed on the altar and the other was cast into the wilderness, purifying the people of Israel of their sins. In the story, Jesus plays the role of both goats.

There was no hurry. It could have been captured and released back in Greenland, but Iceland won't do that because of the cost, so they just kill it. How much would you be willing to contribute to prevent a polar bear from being killed?

31 more...

Since my comment was removed for trolling (I wasn't trolling, it was just sarcasm), I will rephrase it. If we accept the premises that any polar bear that is a threat should be killed and every polar bear is inherently a threat, then the conclusion is that every polar bear should be killed. I reject the first premise and conclusion.

That would require an effort by conservation groups, the various governments, and polar bear experts. If you really wanted to know you could check the plans they made in previous attempts.

I certainly would not be involved so I don't know why you think I should be the one that comes up with any plan. I don't have to be a subject matter expert to advocate for a cause. I don't have to be an OB-GYN to advocate for abortion rights. I don't have to be an environmental scientist to advocate for action on climate change. And I don't have to be an expert on polar bears to be able to say "Maybe we shouldn't kill polar bears."

26 more...