Trump presidency

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10485
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Mon Oct 08, 2018 5:43 am UTC

With the exception of Al Jazeera, they were to "news" websites nobody has ever used before.

Leovan
Posts: 108
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2016 9:31 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Leovan » Mon Oct 08, 2018 6:15 am UTC

Articles or YouTube, it's customary to include a small summary of what the link leads to and perhaps an explanation of the point you're trying to make. Links are supposed to be supporting evidence, not a replacement for writing a post. Especially with so many links there's no way to tell if you're trying to make one point or many, or which movie is worth watching.
So I'd like to add my voice to CUs request for a non-snarky explanation of what your point is.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26725
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby gmalivuk » Mon Oct 08, 2018 11:39 am UTC

Also the link dump format is something Sableagle has done repeatedly in the past and has, I believed, been warned to *stop* doing.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 2085
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Sableagle » Mon Oct 08, 2018 12:49 pm UTC

So's providing an answer more than 140 characters long, failing to provide at least a 500-word explanation of any point raised, supplying fewer than three corroborating links in an explanation and doing other people's homework for them.

Serb search results.png
Oh, Willie McBride, it was all done in vain.

elasto
Posts: 3750
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby elasto » Mon Oct 08, 2018 1:11 pm UTC

Sable: As I saw it, the question that was asked was: Why it is that the Swiss hate Serbs when, say, I never heard of the English hating them especially. Did Serbs do something to Swiss nationals in particular?

Or, to put it another way: Why is it the Swiss hate Serbs but not other groups that have carried out similar atrocities? Again, given the assumption that the Serbs didn't do anything to the Swiss specifically.

It's fine if you don't know the answers to these questions, but that link dump plus screenshots does nothing really to illuminate.

I mean, maybe the answer is buried in there somewhere, but if you don't know or don't have time to distil it then it's polite to just let someone else answer who does.

Discussion forums don't really work if everyone just tells everyone else to Google the answer; You can assume we're all capable of that.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6782
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby sardia » Mon Oct 08, 2018 2:45 pm UTC

Found this on Google of Swiss serbs. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... Qo&ampcf=1
Serbia’s nationalist soccer fans hoped to restore their national pride by beating a Swiss team led by Kosovar stars. Instead, the Kosovo-born Xherdan Shaqiri handed them a humiliating defeat.


I can't find anything that Swiss hates Serbians. This article at best shows that Serbians hate Kosovos, which would extent up anyone who contains Kosovos. Anyway, this is off topic.

What do you think is stronger for the midterms, the Republicans fear of metoo, or the backlash of powerful white men that use the fear of false allegations? I think metoo isn't a women's movement, especially when you control for party. More Democratic men support metoo then GOP women. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... Gr&ampcf=1

When you take that into account, the power of metoo movement looks much weaker, especially given how most accusations turn out. (Old allegations, trauma/shame, no record, no investigation etc etc).
Tldr metoo rides with the Democrats though it's made some incremental changes.

Leovan
Posts: 108
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2016 9:31 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Leovan » Mon Oct 08, 2018 3:25 pm UTC

I just wanted to clarify that I never said the Swiss hated Serbians. The original comment was that Swiss look down on others and I agreed, and that it came together with mild xenophobia focused on whichever immigrant group was the most disruptive at the time, Italians in the 70/80s, ex-Yugoslavians (I was being too specific with the term Serbian) in the 90s, and Muslims/Africans now. The xenophobia is less of a hate and more of a dislike of loud neighbors who don't follow a set of secret but very strict social rules.
As for war crimes, most of the immigrants were victims of those crimes and part of the reason they had trouble fitting into the orderly Swiss society was because they grew up in a war zone. The link Sardia posted was about the fact that we have a lot of people whose families immigrated from today's Kosovo on the Swiss team, and that when we played Serbia, they showed the sign for the Kosovo eagle to show dominance.

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 4060
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Soupspoon » Mon Oct 08, 2018 4:04 pm UTC

Leovan wrote:The original comment was that Swiss look down on others and I agreed,

Of course they do. Because they all live on high alpine meadows (making cuckoo clocks out of army-knife-carved Toblerones and cow-bells made of Nazi gold).

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3988
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Dauric » Mon Oct 08, 2018 4:35 pm UTC

sardia wrote:What do you think is stronger for the midterms, the Republicans fear of metoo, or the backlash of powerful white men that use the fear of false allegations? I think metoo isn't a women's movement, especially when you control for party. More Democratic men support metoo then GOP women. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... Gr&ampcf=1

When you take that into account, the power of metoo movement looks much weaker, especially given how most accusations turn out. (Old allegations, trauma/shame, no record, no investigation etc etc).
Tldr metoo rides with the Democrats though it's made some incremental changes.


I'm guessing the big factor will be if the Kavanaugh appointment energizes the Democratic vote and gives Republican voters a sense of accomplishment/breathing room. The Supreme Court nominations were a big deal in the Republican electorate, and at least anecdotally I recall a number of "man on the street" interviews where Republican voters were adamant for a Republican, any Republican to be in the white house to make those appointments precisely because of how long-lasting an effect those have. (Also keeping in mind "Activist Judges" has been a Republican soundbite for a few decades now).

I think the Supreme Court was a bigger deal for the Social Conservatives than the Presidency or the U.S. Congress really. Most of the social conservative legislation (regarding abortion, sexual rights, etc.) comes out of the state legislatures rather than Washington D.C., then runs the gauntlet up to the U.S. Supreme Court. Not that the Social Conservative wing of the Republicans are going to let House or Senate seats go without a fight, but I'd suspect more of their war chests are going to go to state and local elections than federal now that the SCotUS has been significantly shifted.
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26725
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby gmalivuk » Mon Oct 08, 2018 4:58 pm UTC

Sableagle wrote:So's providing an answer more than 140 characters long, failing to provide at least a 500-word explanation of any point raised, supplying fewer than three corroborating links in an explanation and doing other people's homework for them.

You're welcome to just stop posting here entirely if it's too much work to add some basic context to your link dumps.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Grop
Posts: 1994
Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2008 10:36 am UTC
Location: France

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Grop » Mon Oct 08, 2018 8:13 pm UTC

Soupspoon wrote:
Leovan wrote:The original comment was that Swiss look down on others and I agreed,

Of course they do. Because they all live on high alpine meadows (making cuckoo clocks out of army-knife-carved Toblerones and cow-bells made of Nazi gold).


But then shouldn't they welcome massive imaginary Nepalese immigration?

(Also it would suck to hate a nationality because their football/soccer event+athletes+public was bad. Sports and people interested in sports are the most toxic things especially the most popular sports like soccer/football).

mashnut
Posts: 15
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2014 8:15 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby mashnut » Mon Oct 08, 2018 8:37 pm UTC

asoban wrote:
Quick question, do you think he's lying (or exaggerating his abstinence)about his drinking?


I don't think he's answered untruthfully, but I do think that he's certainly exaggerating. My read is that his drinking during high school and college really probably isn't something that should trip him up provided that he's not an alcoholic now. However, telling the complete truth would probably give an opening for those that oppose him to sink him. I don't think I've ever seen any SC canidate who's not done that. If there was ever a time that someone could get nominated to the supreme court by being completely open and honest about themselves and their judicial philosophy, it's long past.



CorruptUser wrote:So apparently Ford's ex-boyfriend is contradicting some of her claims

The claims he claims are wrong:
1) Ford stated she never prepped someone for a polygraph, which he says she did
2) Ford professed a fear of flying, which he states didn't present an issue in their vacations
3) Ford stated she needed two doors in her home, in spite of the 500 sq foot apartment in california having 1 door and this never having been an issue


So, it will be interesting if this account is verified or not.


Oh hey, look, the upstanding white guy deserves this job despite lying, because you know, lying is fine for him and doesn't mean he's generally a liar. If she got any details wrong though? Then definitely ignore her allegations and assume that everything she said is a lie.

asoban
Posts: 26
Joined: Sat Jul 13, 2013 11:00 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby asoban » Mon Oct 08, 2018 9:35 pm UTC

He is accused of forceful groping and inappropriate contact. WAY more than 5% of men have done that, I guarantee you.


Yet people seem to be absolutely certain of more than that. They seem to be absolutely certain that he is a rapist. However, even if we lower the seriousness of the charge to forceful groping and inappropriate contact, there is still not nearly enough evidence to be at all certain that he did indeed do it.

People keep acting like if he's not a violent Law and Order episode rapist then it's fine. The point is that being the kind of asshole who whips it out in front a woman's face as a party prank should still be enough for you to suffer at least some consequences, whether it amounts to a criminal case or not.


I think I can agree with that. If the allegations are true, then yea, he probably shouldn't be on the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, we don't have the evidence (for whatever reason) to be certain that he did that. I can be accused a million times of robbing a bank, but as I've never actually robbed a bank the accusations are not a reflection on my character.

I totally agree with this, which is why the FBI investigation was so sad. Turns out, if the guy who recommended the nominee is put in charge of the investigation, it won't go anywhere!


Same, however, we still don't have the evidence to be certain, regardless of why. That's what bugs me.

Oh hey, look, the upstanding white guy deserves this job despite lying, because you know, lying is fine for him and doesn't mean he's generally a liar. If she got any details wrong though? Then definitely ignore her allegations and assume that everything she said is a lie.


You are quoting from two different people. My argument is driven by the apparent unshaken assumption that people seem to have that Kavanaugh is indeed guilty. However, the actual evidence we have doesn't measure up to that conclusion. That is all, I'm not arguing about his temperament or if he should be on the supreme court.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10485
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Mon Oct 08, 2018 11:08 pm UTC

I like to think of myself as calm amd collected, but if I was falsely (presumably) accused of sexual assault, I'm not sure how calm I'd be. If he was calm, that'd be seen as "proof" he was an unapologetic rapist. As for demeanor, he wasnt on the bench while at the hearings. I'm beginning to get used to his demeanor.

His lying, however...

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6782
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby sardia » Mon Oct 08, 2018 11:22 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:I like to think of myself as calm amd collected, but if I was falsely (presumably) accused of sexual assault, I'm not sure how calm I'd be. If he was calm, that'd be seen as "proof" he was an unapologetic rapist. As for demeanor, he wasnt on the bench while at the hearings. I'm beginning to get used to his demeanor.

His lying, however...

asoban wrote:Yet people seem to be absolutely certain of more than that. They seem to be absolutely certain that he is a rapist. However, even if we lower the seriousness of the charge to forceful groping and inappropriate contact, there is still not nearly enough evidence to be at all certain that he did indeed do it.
You are quoting from two different people. My argument is driven by the apparent unshaken assumption that people seem to have that Kavanaugh is indeed guilty. However, the actual evidence we have doesn't measure up to that conclusion. That is all, I'm not arguing about his temperament or if he should be on the supreme court.

His lying is probably most equivalent/similar to Bill Clinton's rape cases. Did Bill/Barto Kav rape that girl? In the former's case, the investigation was very in depth, and led them to Lewinsky. In the latter, the investigation was not in depth and ended quickly.

He lied under oath to protect himself from more serious rape charges. The lie helps, and then partisanship takes care of the rest. I find it interesting how blurred the line is between a thorough/cursory investigation vs a fishing expedition. If Democrats win the House in 2018, Trump won't have as much leeway with these stupid acts. Before, Congress could run interference, and let people like asoban vote with a clear conscious. When there's a real investigation, the GOP/Democrats have to spend a lot of time and energy delegitimizing it. See Ken Starr investigation vs Mueller investigation. Both Trump and Clinton spent a lot of time with the fishing expedition argument, and look at how the polling improves for each president. The parallels are amusing to recent history buffs. Of course, to a republican it sounds partisan but..., Trump is worse cuz he's closer to Nixon then Clinton in terms of alleged crimes.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7357
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Trump presidency

Postby The Great Hippo » Tue Oct 09, 2018 12:06 am UTC

asoban wrote:You are quoting from two different people. My argument is driven by the apparent unshaken assumption that people seem to have that Kavanaugh is indeed guilty. However, the actual evidence we have doesn't measure up to that conclusion. That is all, I'm not arguing about his temperament or if he should be on the supreme court.
I'm not absolutely certain, but I am fairly sure -- not that he's a rapist, but that as a teenager, he attempted to rape a teenage girl.

I base this belief off the fact that a woman said so, and corroborating evidence (therapist reports, husband, etc) indicates that she did not make this accusation up in response to some political circumstance. People don't usually make up false accusations of sexual assault. And when they do, they don't tend to discuss them with their therapist years before making them public.

As a rule, I tend to believe people when they make accusations -- especially when 1) The accusations are pretty believable, 2) The accuser has nothing to gain by making them, 3) The accuser has everything to lose by making them.

As another rule, I don't rate the credibility of accusations based on how politically 'inconvenient' I find them to be. I like what I saw of Al Franken's politics; I like a lot of what he said as a Senator. When he faced multiple accusations, I also was fairly sure he was guilty -- because the accusations were believable, the accusers had nothing to gain, and everything to lose.
CorruptUser wrote:I like to think of myself as calm amd collected, but if I was falsely (presumably) accused of sexual assault, I'm not sure how calm I'd be.
Sure, but remember: His opening comments were part of a prepared statement. It's one thing to say a lot of crazy shit when you're running off your gut in a tense environment. But Kavanaugh wrote this shit down long before he said it. He had time to work on this speech; to write it, read it, and review it. And he still thought it was an appropriate speech to give.

On top of that, I'd argue that maintaining your cool and responding to an inquiry with a calm, level-headed approach is kind of a requirement for a judge, nevermind a judge on the highest court in the land. Maintaining the public trust in our judicial system is a critical component of being a Supreme Justice -- and Kavanaugh's conduct throughout the inquiry in no way respected that component.

To Kavanaugh's credit, I will point out that he at least apologized for that bit where he responded to a legitimate question by smirking and asking the question right back.

asoban
Posts: 26
Joined: Sat Jul 13, 2013 11:00 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby asoban » Tue Oct 09, 2018 12:46 am UTC

A few years ago, I had a close friend of mine who was raped. After that incident, I thought about the issue a lot. One of the things that bugged me was that if I was on a jury, I wouldn't be able to convict him. After some research, I considered a common counterfactual that was a lot more clean-cut than the actual situation. I still couldn't get over even a basic threshold of evidence. I'm the first to admit that there is a huge gap between what happened and what we can prove, particularly in rape cases.

When it comes to Ford, there are inconsistencies in her account between the notes and what she said to Congress. The notes don't mention Kavanaugh. These are things that we also need to consider. If her memory has changed over time, then it seems possible that it has changed in other regards. Everyone else who is said to have been there can't corroborate any element of the situation that she described. The burden of proof is on her, and she failed to meet it. A reasonable person can look at the evidence and conclude that Kavanaugh didn't do it.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6819
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Trump presidency

Postby ucim » Tue Oct 09, 2018 1:06 am UTC

asoban wrote:The burden of proof is on her, and she failed to meet it.
No, it isn't.

If this were an actual rape trial, then yes. We would be considering whether the accused should forfeit life, liberty, property, privacy, security, body parts.... something he is otherwise entitled to, because of what he did.

But this was not a trial. It was a job interview. The burden is on him to prove himself worthy of it. He never was entitled to be on the Supreme Court. Nobody is. He's being considered for a promotion, a promotion to and in a branch of government that is supposed to be objective, fact-based, non-partisan, even-tempered, honest, and open. Above all, he himself needs to be objective, fact-based, non-partisan, even-tempered, honest, and open in order to fulfill that role.

In this job interview, in which allegations of misconduct were brought up, he proved to be none of these things. Therefore he should not get the job, which remember is the job of judging what the fundamental law of the land says when hard cases come up.

Whether or not he did juvenile things in high school, even things that were criminal and harmful, is almost irrelevant. However, his attitude towards those things is not.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

asoban
Posts: 26
Joined: Sat Jul 13, 2013 11:00 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby asoban » Tue Oct 09, 2018 1:28 am UTC

Even in a job interview, for her accusation to reflect on him, she has to prove that he did something. She failed to do that.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6819
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Trump presidency

Postby ucim » Tue Oct 09, 2018 1:50 am UTC

asoban wrote:Even in a job interview, for her accusation to reflect on him, she has to prove that he did something.
Not at all. It's not the thing he was accused of doing that reflects on him. It's his response that does. It's the lies he told, the partisan arrogance he displayed, the entitlement he portrayed, the even temperedness he did not have, all of this reflects on him even if the triggering accusation is false.

I don't find him unqualified because of something he did (or didn't do) in high school. I find him unqualified (and dangerous) because of the way he behaves now.

About your friend's assailant - you would not be able to convict him; I get that. But would you hire him as your daughter's babysitter? Would you do so if he behaved as Kavanaugh did when asked about it?

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7357
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Trump presidency

Postby The Great Hippo » Tue Oct 09, 2018 2:10 am UTC

asoban wrote:A few years ago, I had a close friend of mine who was raped. After that incident, I thought about the issue a lot. One of the things that bugged me was that if I was on a jury, I wouldn't be able to convict him. After some research, I considered a common counterfactual that was a lot more clean-cut than the actual situation. I still couldn't get over even a basic threshold of evidence. I'm the first to admit that there is a huge gap between what happened and what we can prove, particularly in rape cases.
And, I mean, that's probably pretty reasonable; a decision made in the court of law carries all the life-altering powers that the government can bring to bare. People respond differently when their decisions can send a man to jail (as they should).
asoban wrote:When it comes to Ford, there are inconsistencies in her account between the notes and what she said to Congress. The notes don't mention Kavanaugh. These are things that we also need to consider. If her memory has changed over time, then it seems possible that it has changed in other regards. Everyone else who is said to have been there can't corroborate any element of the situation that she described.
Those inconsistencies are so trivially minor in scope -- and so effortlessly explicable -- that even mentioning their irrelevance affords them more relevance than they deserve.
asoban wrote:The burden of proof is on her, and she failed to meet it. A reasonable person can look at the evidence and conclude that Kavanaugh didn't do it.
Only if this reasonable person also concludes that Dr. Ford is either lying or deranged.

Which do you think she is?

EDIT: To clarify -- what you probably meant (and how I should likely take your statement) is that a reasonable person could look at the evidence and conclude that Kavanaugh might not have done it. I still disagree -- but that position is not as absurd as "a reasonable person can look at this evidence and conclude Kavanaugh did not do this".

A reasonable person would, at the very least, conclude there is a significant possibility that he did.

gd1
Posts: 343
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2012 5:42 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby gd1 » Tue Oct 09, 2018 10:39 am UTC

I just thought of where I've felt this sort of animosity before. People saying "Let me play carry or I throw." in multiplayer games.
There is no emotion more useless in life than hate.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7357
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Trump presidency

Postby The Great Hippo » Tue Oct 09, 2018 11:31 am UTC

gd1 wrote:I just thought of where I've felt this sort of animosity before. People saying "Let me play carry or I throw." in multiplayer games.
Ha ha, that's so true! Hey, do you remember that one time in Overwatch when someone demanded to play Mercy, and then they forcibly separated thousands of children from their parents and sent them to internment camps, resulting in an international humanitarian crisis that will very likely end with some of those children never seeing their parents again?

Good times!

User avatar
SecondTalon
SexyTalon
Posts: 26508
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 2:10 pm UTC
Location: Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Mars. HA!
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby SecondTalon » Tue Oct 09, 2018 12:38 pm UTC

Dude still lied under oath though.

He lied about his drinking. He (maybe) lied about terms in his yearbook which are embarrassing to have brought up on a national stage but so's lying about a extramarital blowjob which is what sank Clinton so fuck you, you're under oath. He lied about even knowing Ford. He lied about going to parties and his own idiotic calendar proves that one.

The dude lied repeatedly before we even get in to the matter of whether or not he sexually assaulted Ford.

The dude lied about being 18 in 1982. There's literally no way to get around that one - fucking math. 1982-1965 = 17. Dude turned 17 in 1982. It's not that anyone particularly gives a shit about a teenage drinking crime approaching 40 years old, but maybe don't lie about it before Congress.

But I guess that's not a problem.
heuristically_alone wrote:I want to write a DnD campaign and play it by myself and DM it myself.
heuristically_alone wrote:I have been informed that this is called writing a book.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6568
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Thesh » Tue Oct 09, 2018 1:33 pm UTC

As far as I can tell, rape is simply the only thing Republicans consider disqualifying these days. Even then, it's only a small fraction of Republicans - enough to shift the margins and allow a Democrat to win an election here or there, but not lose a primary. There is literally nothing short of being a suspected RINO that will actually cause them to lose primaries. So what motivation do they have to look into his lies? The less ethical the better, for the purposes of the Republican party.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

gd1
Posts: 343
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2012 5:42 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby gd1 » Tue Oct 09, 2018 1:45 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:
gd1 wrote:I just thought of where I've felt this sort of animosity before. People saying "Let me play carry or I throw." in multiplayer games.
Ha ha, that's so true! Hey, do you remember that one time in Overwatch when someone demanded to play Mercy, and then they forcibly separated thousands of children from their parents and sent them to internment camps, resulting in an international humanitarian crisis that will very likely end with some of those children never seeing their parents again?

Good times!


Scaled up obviously, but basically they didn't get what they wanted before and we are paying for it now. Though that doesn't describe everyone of course.

Edit: Also the only way a person is going to carry with Mercy is if they are aimbotting against the spuddiest potatoes in existence.
Last edited by gd1 on Tue Oct 09, 2018 1:58 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
There is no emotion more useless in life than hate.

iamspen
Posts: 484
Joined: Tue May 01, 2012 2:23 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby iamspen » Tue Oct 09, 2018 1:45 pm UTC

SecondTalon wrote:...his own idiotic calendar proves that one.


If I were interviewing someone and caught wind that he had a school calendar from nineteen-eighty-fucking-two laying around and readily accessible, that alone would be a disqualification for me.

That's not even a joke. It's weird and somehow creepy in a way that I can't really explain.

idonno
Posts: 290
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2015 3:34 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby idonno » Tue Oct 09, 2018 1:49 pm UTC


It isn't exactly uncommon for people to get confidential documents without anyone stealing them. How likely did you think it was that they were stolen would have been a useful follow up question because if he provides a low answer, you can actually build a case of catch 22 incompetence or lying on that (not that I think it would have made a difference).

SecondTalon wrote:The dude lied about being 18 in 1982. There's literally no way to get around that one - fucking math. 1982-1965 = 17.

Did he ever say under oath that he was 18? His statements like “My friends and I sometimes got together and had parties on weekends. The drinking age was 18 in Maryland for most of my time in high school, and was 18 in D.C. for all of my time in high school. I drank beer with my friends.” are worded to make it sound like he was legal without actually claiming it and the current claim is that he mentions 18 and seniors to provide an explanation of how they got the beer.

Note: I strongly suspect some of what Kavanaugh said was an outright lie and it is very clear that a lot of what he said was deliberately constructed to mislead. I just don't think it is quite as obvious as your post makes it out.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Oct 09, 2018 3:12 pm UTC

Zamfir wrote:There's a well-known book on nationalism called "Imagined communities", imagined because a nation's members cannot possibly know each other. This is a fairly modern concept - the idea that your main community is a large nation, and by extension a nation-state with borders. It is definitely not a natural extension of some universal community-instinct, it's something people worked very hard and long at to create. Often with harsh consequences for those who did not fit.


's a good perspective. Some of the same caveats apply to a worldwide community. Some major pros, in an "we're all in this together" sort of a way, but from another perspective, it is all pretty artificial.

ucim wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:A Chinese investor buying a chunk of property in California does not give China any ownership over California at a national level.
Uh... yes it does, though in a very diluted manner (because California is big and a single investor is small). That chunk of property gives the (Chinese) owner political influence and a vote (on certain issues). The decisions the investor makes about the property can influence the social makeup (and thus the political makeup) of the community. And this adds to "political ownership", which is one of the arguments against too high an immigration rate.


The investor may have influence, but it's purely individual level influence. It doesn't trickle upward. If a lot of Chinese investors buy into a certain neighborhood, that doesn't mean that China gets to annex it. Yes, it will influence local choices, but that is no different than if any other individuals chose to buy there.

Interestingly, misunderstanding this is part of the anti-Chinese fears. A lot of folks will propose that China is somehow a threat to US sovereignty or something. The logic ends up being a bit twisted, but somehow they think Chinese foreign investment, or tbill ownership will somehow let them exert fairly direct power over the US. None of this can reasonably happen, of course. End of the day, those sorts of conflicts are decided in a military fashion, and the US can project power in a way that China utterly cannot.

idonno wrote:Typically more power comes with more responsibility so if country ownership possesses more power than a private ownership, it is reasonable to assume that it comes with more responsibilities and therefore you cannot simply scale up the responsibilities of private ownership and apply them on a national level. The actual ethical implications of this power and responsibility is what the immigration debate is about.


The responsibilities and power granted by ownership already increase as one owns more. No systemic change is necessary to make that occur.

All of the above, also, is talking about uninvited strangers showing up. One can still argue that it is polite to invite the neighbors over and be hospitable. Giving someone you know a couch to crash on for a bit falls pretty comfortably within social norms. Yeah, you have the right to exclude people from your home, but that doesn't mean you always ought to choose that.

We're merely establishing the lower bounds of it being perfectly okay to exclude some.

And yeah, it being a national boundary instead of, say, state or community level is sort of arbitrary. If one were going for very old school states rights, one might argue for it being a state function instead of a national function, but then we'd need quite a lot more border control systems. Overall, the national system is likely more workable for the US, but say, city-states were no less valid a system.

asoban wrote:Is anyone else bothered by the absolute certainty that a lot of people have that Kavanaugh is indeed a rapist?


Yes. Absolute certainty without evidence is always worrying. Partisanship is a helluva drug, though. Some folks are dead certain that he's innocent, no matter what, and vice versa.

It's a situation where evidence is low, and thus, the reveal of evidence one way or another ought to have significant persuasive value, as it greatly affects the balance of known evidence. The fact that the sides mostly don't change when evidence comes out is revealing about motives. It can sometimes be helpful to consider what level of evidence it would take to convince you to change sides.

WriteBrainedJR wrote:
Opus_723 wrote:The point is that being the kind of asshole who whips it out in front a woman's face as a party prank should still be enough for you to suffer at least some consequences, whether it amounts to a criminal case or not.


It's a little crazy to me that this process is being spun as a sign that men everywhere need to be afraid. Kavanaugh's not going to jail, and nobody with any influence is saying that he should. Nobody's saying that he should lose his job, or lose his pension, or even that we should give him a nasty look if we see him in the grocery store. All that's being said is that people who have multiple sexual assault allegations, who go on volatile, partisan rants, and who lie under oath, should not be promoted to the highest court in the land from a court slightly lower than that one.


People keep trying, but the traction seems to be limited. Ultimately, I don't think every guy fears that. It'd be ridiculously hard to lobby such a claim against, say, Pence. Yeah, it might be possible to successfully prosecute a false claim against someone who barely toes the line on what is legal/acceptable conduct, and attempts to get away with as much as possible, but it's significantly harder against people who genuinely try to do the right thing.

So, to a degree, how much they personally fear such allegations may be informative as to the sketchiness of their personal conduct.

Quercus wrote:
WriteBrainedJR wrote: I just don't get why they're insisting on this guy.


My guess is that part of it is probably norm-shifting. You push the outrageous candidate through, everyone reasonable gets all outraged, but then it goes through anyway and people get the subconscious message that a) they are powerless to change the outcome of stuff like this and b) this is the new normal. Therefore there's a little bit less energy and hope in the opposition the next time.

Basically it's a power play - it's not so much that the GOP must have this guy, it's that the democrats really don't want him. It's the GOP saying "we can do whatever we want and you can't stop us".


Trump is indeed widening the Overton window, and I've speculated a bit about this before. I think it's an intentional strategy. Trump views angering Democrats as a net win, and is deliberately provoking fights.

Sableagle wrote:So's providing an answer more than 140 characters long, failing to provide at least a 500-word explanation of any point raised, supplying fewer than three corroborating links in an explanation and doing other people's homework for them.


No particular feelings either way with regards to Serbs myself, but yes, a summary to accompany links is polite. Perhaps a paragraph. It's not super formal, but generally your post ought to contain your argument, with links existing to support your argument/provide further room for investigation. Skipping the argument itself is leaving out the most important bit.

mashnut wrote:Oh hey, look, the upstanding white guy deserves this job despite lying, because you know, lying is fine for him and doesn't mean he's generally a liar. If she got any details wrong though? Then definitely ignore her allegations and assume that everything she said is a lie.


If she's lying about significant elements, it does call her narrative into question. However, one must keep in mind that this is, so far, apparently just the word of her ex-boyfriend. Sometimes exes have difficult relationships afterward. If one were fully investigating the situation, checking up on the boyfriend's report would seem reasonable. Apartment, flights? Those ought to be entirely confirmable. After all, this is exactly the sort of thing the FBI ought to peruse in a thorough investigation, yes?

It seems that we're getting a partisan show instead, though.

CorruptUser wrote:I like to think of myself as calm amd collected, but if I was falsely (presumably) accused of sexual assault, I'm not sure how calm I'd be. If he was calm, that'd be seen as "proof" he was an unapologetic rapist. As for demeanor, he wasnt on the bench while at the hearings. I'm beginning to get used to his demeanor.

His lying, however...


I'd probably laugh at it. Because it would be far out of character of me, and because any allegation of the sort Kavinaugh's facing would be ridiculous. Also, probably fairly easy to disprove. But hey, people react to things differently. I'm all for investigating, just to be sure. Yknow, thoroughly. But my personal read on his demeanor is that he comes across as angry at being challenged. That's a bit troubling even without hard proof.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6819
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Trump presidency

Postby ucim » Tue Oct 09, 2018 3:29 pm UTC

iamspen wrote:If I were interviewing someone and caught wind that he had a school calendar from nineteen-eighty-fucking-two laying around and readily accessible, that alone would be a disqualification for me.

That's not even a joke. It's weird and somehow creepy in a way that I can't really explain.
Why? Really, why? I have such calendars, so do many other people I know. Lots of people keep diaries. Lots of people keep old letters from friends, lovers, exes. Some people make scrapbooks of their lives. I can see not being interested in doing those things yourself, but I don't at all see being creeped out by people who do them.

Tyndmyr wrote:The investor may have influence, but it's purely individual level influence. It doesn't trickle upward. If a lot of Chinese investors buy into a certain neighborhood, that doesn't mean that China gets to annex it. Yes, it will influence local choices, but that is no different than if any other individuals chose to buy there.
True. But this applies to unfocused individual investment. It is possible however for a foreign nation to gather individuals to invest in a focused manner in another country's land and infrastructure, be it formally (as a conspiracy) or informally (simply by making conditions ripe for such investment). In sufficient quantity, they can exert some more leverage.

I don't remember what the point of this was though.

EDIT: found it: viewtopic.php?p=4396604#p4396604

You mentioned invasion. If a country is trying to exert some of the kind of control that an invasion would grant, this is a subtle way of accomplishing some of this, and perhaps making an actual invasion easier. Granted, an actual invasion would be bigger in scale, but would also be riskier, more costly, and encounter more resistance.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6782
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby sardia » Tue Oct 09, 2018 3:36 pm UTC

This is off topic, and may not apply entirely to the US, but you ignore China at your peril. For example, Greece got a nice shiny upgrade to a port, and all of a sudden decided that confronting China on human rights wasn't productive. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... T7MnZa9EBQ

Smaller countries can be forced to sign ruinous deals, which is analogous to most small cities. Say fox Conn deal in Wisconsin. When you're a small country, then you don't give a shit about others. But China has huge market share, money to burn, and are very spiteful (vision for dominance). It's a recipe for danger.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Oct 09, 2018 3:48 pm UTC

ucim wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:The investor may have influence, but it's purely individual level influence. It doesn't trickle upward. If a lot of Chinese investors buy into a certain neighborhood, that doesn't mean that China gets to annex it. Yes, it will influence local choices, but that is no different than if any other individuals chose to buy there.
True. But this applies to unfocused individual investment. It is possible however for a foreign nation to gather individuals to invest in a focused manner in another country's land and infrastructure, be it formally (as a conspiracy) or informally (simply by making conditions ripe for such investment). In sufficient quantity, they can exert some more leverage.

I don't remember what the point of this was though.

EDIT: found it: viewtopic.php?p=4396604#p4396604

You mentioned invasion. If a country is trying to exert some of the kind of control that an invasion would grant, this is a subtle way of accomplishing some of this, and perhaps making an actual invasion easier. Granted, an actual invasion would be bigger in scale, but would also be riskier, more costly, and encounter more resistance.

Jose


It was talking about the applicability of the homeowner analogy. Basically, the two circumstances are analogous, but they are not identical. One should not expect purchase of private property to be identical to a national level property acquisition, but this doesn't matter to the analogy.

sardia wrote:This is off topic, and may not apply entirely to the US, but you ignore China at your peril. For example, Greece got a nice shiny upgrade to a port, and all of a sudden decided that confronting China on human rights wasn't productive. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source= ... T7MnZa9EBQ

Smaller countries can be forced to sign ruinous deals, which is analogous to most small cities. Say fox Conn deal in Wisconsin. When you're a small country, then you don't give a shit about others. But China has huge market share, money to burn, and are very spiteful (vision for dominance). It's a recipe for danger.


Oh, China definitely is a concern, just not at the "they're gonna invade us" level. If you're worried about intellectual property, trade, human rights, it's an entirely legitimate concern.

idonno
Posts: 290
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2015 3:34 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby idonno » Tue Oct 09, 2018 3:51 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:There are basically two tiers of ownership. Country ownership and private property ownership. The latter is pretty much subordinate to the former.

Tyndmyr wrote:
idonno wrote:Typically more power comes with more responsibility so if country ownership possesses more power than a private ownership, it is reasonable to assume that it comes with more responsibilities and therefore you cannot simply scale up the responsibilities of private ownership and apply them on a national level. The actual ethical implications of this power and responsibility is what the immigration debate is about.


The responsibilities and power granted by ownership already increase as one owns more. No systemic change is necessary to make that occur.


The point is not about the difference between larger and smaller private land owner's authority and responsibilities. The point is not about the difference between larger and smaller countries' authority and responsibilities. You stated there is a difference in the power of ownership by countries and private citizens with private being subordinate. The scale is not the issue raised and therefore any naturally occurring increase in responsibility as the scale increases is not relevant.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6819
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Trump presidency

Postby ucim » Tue Oct 09, 2018 3:56 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Basically, the two circumstances are analogous, but they are not identical. One should not expect purchase of private property to be identical to a national level property acquisition, but this doesn't matter to the analogy.
Yes. I agree. I've even said as much. I do not expect the two to be identical. But the analogy is instructive.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Oct 09, 2018 4:06 pm UTC

idonno wrote:
The point is not about the difference between larger and smaller private land owner's authority and responsibilities. The point is not about the difference between larger and smaller countries' authority and responsibilities. You stated there is a difference in the power of ownership by countries and private citizens with private being subordinate. The scale is not the issue raised and therefore any naturally occurring increase in responsibility as the scale increases is not relevant.


The one system is subordinate to the other, but that doesn't change the value as an analogy.

Your kid's allowance is subordinate to your wages, but you can still use the allowance to teach about managing wages.

idonno
Posts: 290
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2015 3:34 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby idonno » Tue Oct 09, 2018 5:38 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
idonno wrote:
The point is not about the difference between larger and smaller private land owner's authority and responsibilities. The point is not about the difference between larger and smaller countries' authority and responsibilities. You stated there is a difference in the power of ownership by countries and private citizens with private being subordinate. The scale is not the issue raised and therefore any naturally occurring increase in responsibility as the scale increases is not relevant.


The one system is subordinate to the other, but that doesn't change the value as an analogy.

Your kid's allowance is subordinate to your wages, but you can still use the allowance to teach about managing wages.

If you raise a kid thinking that their adult financial responsibilities are just the allowance responsibility scaled up, you are a bad parent. Parents have obligations to do things with their income that a children will never have with an allowance. The question of immigration is about what those obligations are and you cannot just scale up a homeowners obligations to answer this question because there are fundamental differences in the sort of authority a homeowner has and a government has.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Oct 09, 2018 5:39 pm UTC

Hey, if that's the hill you want to die on....

Why are we obliged to accept everyone into the country, then?

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6819
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Trump presidency

Postby ucim » Tue Oct 09, 2018 5:56 pm UTC

idonno wrote:The question of immigration is about what those obligations are
No it isn't. Not by a long shot. Unless you mean something along the lines of using one's money to help others... and that's something that can definitely be taught to children, and their allowance is a good tool for doing that. And homeowners answer similar questions when they vote on what to do with the tax money, and on who decides the details.

Details change, but the fundamentals don't. And the character that is built as a child and as a homeowner also influences ones attitudes as a citizen.

Jose
Last edited by ucim on Tue Oct 09, 2018 6:07 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6782
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby sardia » Tue Oct 09, 2018 6:05 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Hey, if that's the hill you want to die on....

Why are we obliged to accept everyone into the country, then?

Is millions more the same as everybody? Also, is letting people here stay the same as accepting everybody? I think it's a strawman because 'everybody' is a scary conceptual number. Especially compared to "my favorite Visa program takes forever to issue visas, can someone issue more visas and make it faster?" Right now the solution seems to let the government be as inefficient as possible to process applicants.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Oct 09, 2018 6:11 pm UTC

sardia wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Hey, if that's the hill you want to die on....

Why are we obliged to accept everyone into the country, then?

Is millions more the same as everybody? Also, is letting people here stay the same as accepting everybody? I think it's a strawman because 'everybody' is a scary conceptual number. Especially compared to "my favorite Visa program takes forever to issue visas, can someone issue more visas and make it faster?" Right now the solution seems to let the government be as inefficient as possible to process applicants.


The origin of this particular comparison was in opposition to the idea that borders ought not exist. It's not really a strawman if that's explicitly what folks have been arguing.

Now, the house analogy doesn't give you any particular criteria that you ought to use for determining roommate. There is definitely room for discussion of what criteria would be best. It merely indicates that a standard more strict than no controls at all is desirable.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 19 guests