Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - scifibum

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 8
General Comments / Re: TDS is a real thing
« on: May 15, 2019, 03:38:39 PM »
Seriati, abortion providers do talk about 3rd trimester and later abortions. It's not a mystery. Roe v Wade put them in a separate legal category and it does not make sense to assume that late 2nd trimester abortion stats carry over into the 3rd and later. That's a pretty dumb theory.

General Comments / Re: TDS is a real thing
« on: May 14, 2019, 07:26:14 PM »
Pete, since I know you care about accurate terminology, you should avoid the term "late term abortion". A "term" pregnancy is 37 weeks or later. "Late term" is past 41 weeks. Abortions at that point are incredibly rare and do not have any significance as a category of abortions. They are a subset of the already rare 3rd trimester-and-later category which are generally to save the mother's life or remove a fetus with medical conditions that are incompatible with survival outside the womb, but not a subset that needs different rules.

In short, "late term abortion" misuses the term "late term". If it were a thing, it wouldn't be a thing that needed its own category.

41+ weeks, although rare, needs its own category because at that stage the D&X technique prevails, which is more dangerous to the mother than simple induction and birth.  The standard that you provided is an excellent rule but NARAL has fought against that rule saying "mental health" reasons should prevail even at 41+ weeks.

It doesn't need its own category when it comes to the law, and I wasn't providing a rule for when abortions can happen. Seriati helpfully proved my point about why "late term abortion" is the wrong term to use.

General Comments / Re: TDS is a real thing
« on: May 14, 2019, 07:15:25 PM »
They are a subset of the already rare 3rd trimester-and-later category which are generally to save the mother's life or remove a fetus with medical conditions that are incompatible with survival outside the womb, but not a subset that needs different rules.

That's the kind of statement that activists repeat without examination because it sounds like it should be true.  It's tough to accurately parse out, but I think it's safe to say there is no evidence that establishes that third trimester abortions are for the reasons you suggest.  The article in my quote below implies there are about 10k a year and they are likely pursued for the same reasons as other abortions.

I note, it's particularly hard to get good information about the reasons because there are legal consequences surrounding them.

That gets repeated alot, but as far as I can tell its not true.  Here's a quote from an article on the Washington Post, it's definitely not a pro life article.

“Based on limited research and discussions with researchers in the field, Dr. Foster believes that abortions for fetal anomaly ‘make up a small minority of later abortion’ and that those for life endangerment are even harder to characterize,” the report stated.

They also imply that these abortions are roughly about 10k of the million or so annual abortions. 

There isn't good research on a lot of these questions, which always makes me wonder about the highly confident statements that get made on the topic.  In any event, it doesn't appear to me that medical reasons drive the majority of the late term abortions.

This post is a good example of why "late term" is the wrong term.

Seriati, you are confused about the article you linked. It is describing abortions in the 21st to 24th week - this is in the first paragraph - which is at the end of the 2nd trimester.

This is NOT what I was talking about. I am not confused about why 3rd trimester-into-late term abortions occur.

General Comments / Re: TDS is a real thing
« on: May 14, 2019, 03:00:22 PM »
Pete, since I know you care about accurate terminology, you should avoid the term "late term abortion". A "term" pregnancy is 37 weeks or later. "Late term" is past 41 weeks. Abortions at that point are incredibly rare and do not have any significance as a category of abortions. They are a subset of the already rare 3rd trimester-and-later category which are generally to save the mother's life or remove a fetus with medical conditions that are incompatible with survival outside the womb, but not a subset that needs different rules.

In short, "late term abortion" misuses the term "late term". If it were a thing, it wouldn't be a thing that needed its own category.

*couple of edits to my own terminology in above

General Comments / Re: TDS is a real thing
« on: May 13, 2019, 01:53:32 PM »
What are those two cases Pete?

General Comments / Re: The Meuller Report
« on: May 09, 2019, 06:13:55 PM »
You're welcome to deny the truth!

General Comments / Re: The Meuller Report
« on: May 09, 2019, 02:20:36 PM »
Good grief.

The Fusion GPS research was initiated by Republicans.

The FISA application noted specifically that the dossier came from efforts to discredit the Trump campaign. This Nunes narrative that this was hidden from the FISA court is 100% nonsense, and the above quotations treating this information as some kind of bombshell that was just confirmed are totally wacky.

You'd think if the FBI was trying to elect Hillary they'd have written a letter in the week before mentioning the open investigation. Oh wait, they did. It was a letter about their Hillary email investigation.

General Comments / Re: TDS is a real thing
« on: May 08, 2019, 01:24:37 PM »
State Representative Brian Sims (D-PA) has demonstrated symptoms of Stage IV TDS:

Sims made headlines on Saturday when he live-streamed himself harassing an elderly pro-life woman outside a Planned Parenthood in Pennsylvania.

"Shame on you!" Sims screamed at the woman, LifeNews reported. "You have a problem protesting in public? Don’t protest in public!"

Sims also attempted to have her doxxed so he could show up at her home: "If you know who this woman is and you can give me her address, we’ll protest out in front of her home. Let’s go protest out of her house and tell her what’s right for her body," he said.

And he wasn’t done. Sims also taped himself trying to dox three teenage girls who were praying for the unborn outside the clinic.

"What we’ve got here is a bunch of protesters, a bunch of pseudo-Christian protesters who’ve been out here shaming young girls for being here," the Democrat charged.

"So here’s the deal," he told his viewers, "I’ve got a $100 for anyone who will identify any of these three."

He also ridiculed the young girls for being "white," though one of the teens informed him she is not. "So, look, a bunch of white people standing outside a Planned Parenthood," he mocked.

Going after a eldery woman and teenage girls, offering money to dox them, what a great guy.  The left has lost its mind.

Why are you claiming that this nutjob was screaming at and threatening protesters because of "TDS"? Did he scream something like "Trump is a Russian spy, therefore I will find your house and protest there?"

General Comments / Re: The Meuller Report
« on: April 23, 2019, 04:04:09 PM »
They followed normal processes in FISA applications. They didn't break the law. Nunes is a clown.

General Comments / Re: The Meuller Report
« on: April 22, 2019, 06:14:35 PM »
Illegally obtained FISA warrants

No, they followed the normal process and it was legal.

As for the subsequent investigations you're calling for, perhaps you will want to engage a top notch outfit called Surefire Investigations. They were ahead of the curve with this thinking.

General Comments / Re: The Meuller Report
« on: April 19, 2019, 01:33:20 PM »
This is literally where we are:

Liberals: Trump stole the election by colluding with Russia!

Trump: I didn’t collude.

Liberals: We’ll wait for House investigation.

House committee: No collusion!

Liberals: We’ll wait for Senate investigation.

Senate committee: No collusion!

Liberals: We’ll wait for Mueller report.

Mueller: No collusion!


We now go back to the beginning.    :o

It strikes me if you're confident in your position you wouldn't rely so much on inaccurate paraphrases and lumping all "liberals" together.

General Comments / Re: The Meuller Report
« on: April 19, 2019, 01:31:07 PM »
Sadly, youare probably correct. The left got exactly the investigation they wanted by the guys they wanted to do it and now dismiss the results.

From page 2 of the report:
The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign coordinated with the Russian government in its election of interference activities.

Yet there are people, even on this forum, that still maintain there are mountains of proof that Trump coordinated with Putin and is a Russian agent.

Mueller acknowledges that the administration fully cooperated with the investigation in every way.

Yet people, right here on this forum, insist that despite Mueller confirming such cooperation that there must be obstruction. Note, these are the same people that for the last 2+ years told us about all that proof of Russian collusion which, it turns out, never existed.

There is a level of denial here at work that’s just truly incredible. I hope it lasts.

Couple of things.

1. Your second quote - who said that? Those aren't Mueller's words. There are plenty of ways described in the report that the President was not cooperative, to put it mildly. That quote is a dishonest or ignorant summary.

2. You're making things up. Go pull the quotes of people right here on this forum who said there are mountains of proof of the nature you're representing here.

General Comments / Re: The Meuller Report
« on: April 19, 2019, 01:26:28 PM »
Sure. Whatever you say.

Why do you think none of the 17 lawyers or 40 FBI agents or even Mueller himself, who have leaked heavily this whole time, are not contradicting Barr?

This is a strange argument for you to make, since Mueller's team has famously been tight lipped, and it only began to change after Barr's summarization came out - THEN a few of the team members began talking on background to reporters about how Barr was not fairly representing the report.  The opposite of what you seem to be saying here.

General Comments / Re: TDS is a real thing
« on: April 18, 2019, 04:24:10 PM »
What's the difference between what Trump does and how the left routinely calls conservatives Nazis, racists, homophobes, etc, etc, etc? The left has always been willing to be grotesque, it's a go-to strategy - in fact, it was just employed on another thread about an hour ago.

Boo hoo, that bothersome left making us look at what the words we say mean.

We could have gotten away with it without you meddling children!

Uh. The words mean whatever the speaker intends them to mean. Basic precept of communication.

That said, words can be interpreted to mean things wildly different than what the speaker intends.

The hell? You haven't studied communications, have you?

"meaning" is on both sides.  "Can be interpreted" as something distinct from meaning is...I can't even tell what you think you mean by that.

General Comments / Re: The Meuller Report
« on: April 18, 2019, 04:22:36 PM »
"the White House fully cooperated with the Special Counsel’s investigation, providing unfettered access to campaign and White House documents, directing senior aides to testify freely, and asserting no privilege claims."

The left calls that obstruction. WTF? Full cooperation, provided access to everything and everyone involved with the direction they testify freely, and no claims of executive privilege.

How does this behavior obstruct the investigation?

That is not a remotely accurate summary. Barr seems to be shilling there.

In the report Barr is releasing as he says this, it's documented that Trump tried to get McGahn to lie, he instructed Hicks and Trump Jr. to lie. He publicly condemned people cooperating with prosecutors and praised those who seemed to be withholding cooperation. 

General Comments / Re: The Meuller Report
« on: April 18, 2019, 03:50:19 PM »
Barr definitely put his own spin on the report with his initial statements on the "principal conclusions".

It's accurate to say that Mueller declined to accuse the President of obstruction of justice, but he goes out of his way to explain that he did not think he should do so even if the evidence warrants it. He offers:

1) OLC guidance against indicting sitting President
2) Sealed indictment might leak
3) Might interfere with Congress's ability to hold the President accountable

#3 is pretty key, and I think Barr's response to this question this morning is significantly misleading:

Reporter: "Did the special counsel indicate that he wanted you to make the decision or that it should be left for Congress? And also, how do you respond to criticism you're receiving from congressional Democrats that you're acting more as an attorney for the president rather than as the chief law enforcement officer?"

Barr: "Well, special counsel Mueller did not indicate that his purpose was to leave the decision to Congress. I hope that was not his view, since we don't convene grand juries and conduct criminal investigations for that purpose. He did not -- I didn't talk to him directly about the fact that we were making the decision, but I am told that his reaction to that was that it was my prerogative as attorney general to make that decision."

Clearly the reporter doesn't mean that Congress should decide whether DOJ indicts the President. The question was whether Mueller intended for Congress to determine whether and how to hold the President accountable for obstruction of justice. There's evidence in the report that Mueller thinks that's the preferable alternative given the constraints he listed out.

All that being said, no, there's no slam dunk. Nobody in the Senate is going to suddenly want to convict after impeachment based on this report. Mostly it's stuff we already knew.

General Comments / Re: liberal tech companies
« on: April 15, 2019, 05:45:15 PM »
You probably don't see a lot of tech entrepreneurs in the Sanders/Ocasio-Cortez mold either,

"Social entrepreneurship" is definitely a thing, but these aren't the big money type of ideas by definition.

General Comments / Re: liberal tech companies
« on: April 15, 2019, 01:54:25 PM »
I work for a large tech company founded and headquartered in Silicon Valley, but at an office in one of the most conservative cities in UT.

The company has an inclusive, pro-LGBTQ culture. This is a smart business decision. It doesn't stop normal Republicans from wanting to work here (it probably stops some of the more homophobic people of whatever political stripes). It also makes LGBTQ people and allies want to work here more than they would otherwise. So: pro gay marriage. Same approach with stated values on gender equality, and on racial diversity (though gender equality in particular continues to be a problem like at most companies). Again, these positions don't alienate reasonable people from wanting to work here, but having them makes others appreciate working here more than they would otherwise.

These "cultural values" are probably enough to give people the impression that the company is left-leaning. This same company lobbies for low taxes (conservative position). The CEO under whom the company culture was established is a Republican.

I think this is generally how it works. "Socially liberal" politics are good for recruitment. "Fiscally conservative" politics are an outcome of how corporations are structured and regulated.

General Comments / Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
« on: April 08, 2019, 12:48:45 PM »
I mean honestly, reparations are suddenly on the table.  Why now?  We have record unemployment and real wage growth, less and less people on the public dole.  So why now?  Why does the green new deal include universal basic income concepts including for those who don't want to work?  We have a labor shortage and the left is advocating to make it worse?  Why?  - We all know why, they are afraid that if people realize their lives are getting better they're realize the left's policies are morally bankrupt and not give them power.

You're obviously not asking the question in good faith, since you think "we all know why", but for anybody who wants to know, it's because the generational effects of slavery and Jim Crow continue, and because it would bring some measure of economic justice to the descendants of the oppressed people. This covers some data points:

You can obviously choose to believe in conservative articles of faith such as government assistance doesn't really help people, but making up racist motives for others is pretty low.

General Comments / Re: The Meuller Report
« on: April 01, 2019, 03:32:46 PM »
A President does not "try" to fire a member of the executive branch and somehow fail to do it.

What do you call it when he orders a subordinate to fire Mueller and the subordinate refuses, then the president later drops it?

General Comments / Re: The Meuller Report
« on: April 01, 2019, 02:31:44 PM »
On the other hand, Trump did try twice (although limply) to fire Mueller, praised those who refused to cooperate while denigrating those who did cooperate, refused to rule out pardoning Manafort, howled without any evidence that Mueller's team was engaged in a political witch hunt (which convinced you apparently), and has repeatedly floated the idea of retributive prosecutions.

If you're concerned about how divisive the whole thing has been, you should be blaming Trump.

General Comments / Re: The Meuller Report
« on: April 01, 2019, 01:34:03 PM »
Seriati, you're acting like you know what's in the report. All you have is Barr's narrowly focused letter. Why don't you wait and see what else is in there.

Barr's letter was not "narrowly focused" it had a broad and sweeping focus.  Summary is not the same thing as narrow.

Yes, it was narrowly focused. Did not establish a criminal conspiracy with Russian government or IRA, and Barr doesn't think Trump is guilty of obstruction. There's no elucidation of the evidence on "both sides" of the obstruction question, and there's 400 pages of Mueller's summary of his prosecutorial decisions (which resulted in many indictments).

Also, it would be more understandable to say what you are saying a week ago, but since then Barr himself denies that he tried to summarize the report:

“I am aware of some media reports and other public statements mischaracterizing my March 24, 2019, supplemental notification as a ‘summary’ of the Special Counsel’s investigation and report,” Barr wrote.

Note that when I told you that you should wait, you were making claims about Mueller's timing - you seem pretty sure he was delaying announcements about his conclusions for no good reason. Presumably the report contains some information about how the investigation progressed, which questions remained open for how long, and when conclusions were reached. There's a lot we don't know, and your presumptions about how the case progressed are uninformed.

General Comments / Re: The Meuller Report
« on: March 27, 2019, 04:51:14 PM »
Seriati, you're acting like you know what's in the report. All you have is Barr's narrowly focused letter. Why don't you wait and see what else is in there.

General Comments / Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
« on: March 27, 2019, 04:44:23 PM »
Either the prosecutor is omitting something crucial in his explanations about this, or he has the worst judgment imaginable. 10k and a few hours of service is a ridiculously light penalty, but would be far easier to understand it if came with an admission of guilt. But it's not even a plea deal - I'm not even sure it meets due process requirements.

General Comments / Re: The Meuller Report
« on: March 25, 2019, 03:48:41 PM »
Of course the Democrats want to see the information in the report and be able to use it politically. This idea that they are going to refuse to know any classified information is a pretty weird spin. Obviously what Pelosi was saying is that they won't be *satisfied* with a gang of eight briefing by itself. This was of course *before* Barr's letter on Sunday.

Crunch is having a good time though, so I guess we should be happy for him.

General Comments / Re: "Misgendering" hate crime
« on: March 20, 2019, 05:23:21 PM »
There still needs to be a criminal offense. The information you linked to is about the aggravating factors that can elevate a crime into a hate crime.

Do you have any evidence of anyone being prosecuted for a hate crime for misgendering?

General Comments / Re: "Misgendering" hate crime
« on: March 20, 2019, 04:50:57 PM »
I don't give a rip about the teacher. What's concerning is having a law that can compel the way you speak, and throw you in prison if you don't use the correct words, which themselves can be a moving target and literally subject to the "perception" of the "victim".

There are a lot of laws going on the books these days which are centered entirely around the perception of the "victim" at this point, not just hate crime laws.

This topic's about the one that threatens imprisonment for saying unapproved words.

It doesn't do that though. The activist said "hate crime" but there's no evidence that anyone has attempted to or intends to charge the teacher with a criminal offense. There's no law that says the guy can be jailed for this.

General Comments / Re: "Misgendering" hate crime
« on: March 20, 2019, 02:38:30 PM »
The only quoted source in the article works for an advocacy organization. I don't see any quotes from the teacher, the school, or the police.

He did apparently lose his job over it, after repeated warnings.

Actually, the article says "a teacher" lost their job, not the teacher mentioned in the headline. It goes on to explain that it was a different person (who is suing).

From the details in the article, the teacher mentioned in the headline got additional training, and we only have the Mermaids spokesperson using the words "hate crime".

It looks like violations of the 2010 Equality Act are torts, not crimes. From what I can find in a quick search, in the UK, just like in the US, you need an underlying crime to get to "hate crime", and there doesn't appear to be any underlying crime here (such as assault).

To sum up, someone working for the Mermaids organization said "hate crime" and the Telegraph ran with that without substantiating it in any way. There's no official quoted saying this. There were no criminal charges, and it doesn't appear the teacher Mermaids was talking about even lost the job.

Won't stop Crunch going all 1984 about it though.

General Comments / Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
« on: December 31, 2018, 02:37:54 PM »
I've never seen any proof of his one, so glad to hear you verified all the voters in the country and eliminated the possibility - mind citing us to that proof again?

Do you have a sincere belief that the burden of proof falls to disproving a wild, unsubstantiated (despite efforts by Kobach and others) claim like the one that Trump would have won the popular vote if not for millions of illegal votes?

If so, you are overdue for some reflection.

General Comments / Re: Abuses of Power
« on: December 10, 2018, 07:45:53 PM »
AOC is energetic, smart, and already pointing out aspects of the the "swamp" that need to be corrected, like a supposed orientation for members of Congress that was heavily attended by lobbyists and CEOs. She scares conservatives, which is why they are so desperate to come up with a narrative that she's dumb or wears fancy clothes or something.

Just look at Crunch here. Repeating the talking points like a good boy. The age thing was a joke, btw, which is entirely obvious even from a transcript:

“No, not for a long time. Thank God,” Ocasio-Cortez said. “Although we’ve been joking that because the Equal Rights Amendment hasn’t been passed yet, the Constitution technically says he cannot run unless he’s 35. … So what we’ll do is we’ll force the Republican Party to pass the Equal Rights Amendment by threatening to run for president.”

She says "we've been joking" and yet here Crunch is, pretending she was serious and grossly misinformed, because that's the party line.

Why do you post here Crunch? Nobody buys what you're selling.

General Comments / Re: Is Money Laundering a High Crime or Misdemeanor?
« on: December 06, 2018, 03:20:31 PM »
We get it, orange man bad.

I get it, your president is a garbage fire and so the best option available is to attempt to ridicule the people who aren't willing to ignore that for a tax cut.

General Comments / Re: Is Money Laundering a High Crime or Misdemeanor?
« on: December 05, 2018, 06:07:36 PM »
I haven't see the "egregious" lies, I know you want to believe that's willful blindness, but honestly, the "eggregiosness" and even in many cases the "lies"  themselves seem mostly to be unfavorable interpretations.

No, no no. Lies. Constant. Some small, many egregious. (My spelling is correct in case you're not sure.)

Whenever people point out the lies you pick small ones and quibble, and ignore the big ones or simply insist they are different points of view. You can do your own homework if you want:

The "Voter fraud" is a pretty good category for sheer made up nonsense, like this:

"A lot of times it doesn't matter, because in many places, like California, the same person votes many times. You probably heard about that. They always like to say, 'Oh, that's a conspiracy theory.' Not a conspiracy theory, folks. Millions and millions of people."

Note the repetition on this one:

"We started it about eight months ago. It's incredible. The head of U.S. Steel called up, he said I've never said anything like it -- what you've been able to do in such a short part of time. They're building seven new plants, they're expanding plants."

Source: Campaign rally in Huntington, West Virginia

in fact: Though Trump had been making such claims for four months, there was still no evidence at the time that U.S. Steel is building seven new plants. At the time Trump spoke, U.S. Steel had only announced a major development at two existing facilities since he introduced his steel tariffs. First it said it was restarting two shuttered blast furnaces at its plant in Granite City, Illinois, then that it was investing $750 million to revitalize a plant in Gary, Indiana.

Trump has repeated this claim 30 times

If this were the standard in place, admitting we can't determine soulessness, you agree we should have impeached Obama and Clinton as well?

Hell no I don't agree. Trump's dishonesty is a couple of orders of magnitude above any president in living memory. He just makes things up constantly. There's no comparison to Obama and Clinton.

What is this "rule" that Trump is violating so clearly in your head that so clearly  demands a specific action that you aren't seeing and what exactly is that action?

I'll tell you what it is, it's a strawman of your own invention. Must have been fun taking it down.

General Comments / Re: Is Money Laundering a High Crime or Misdemeanor?
« on: December 05, 2018, 11:45:11 AM »
Seriati, being a soulless demagogue who constantly tells egregious lies to the people is impeachable. It's not going to happen with this congress because they are too partisan. It won't happen with the next congress because the Senate will remain too partisan to convict. But it should. We should require basic decency from the highest elected office in the nation, and Trump debases the office with his constant lying. He uses Twitter and his rallies to repeat, over and over again, many falsehoods. One good recent example is claiming that he has $150 billion in spending commitments from Saudi Arabia, to justify his inaction over the crown prince-directed  murder of Kashoggi. He's repeated this false claim multiple times, trying to manipulate popular belief into thinking that any effort to hold the Saudis accountable will impoverish our nation. But that's just one out of many.

I know that lying in this way is not a crime, but "high crimes and misdemeanors" has never been meant to map to the criminal justice code. There is already precedent for impeachment over demagoguery, for other offices. There's no reason it couldn't be one article among several, including obstruction of justice - again it doesn't have to be based on a criminal charge, which you know - and abusing his military authority for political purposes with the southern border deployment. Not to mention literally standing with Putin in Helsinki while endorsing his claim that Russia did not interfere in our elections, immediately after Mueller detailed Russia's efforts: egregiously siding against American interests.

General Comments / Re: Is Money Laundering a High Crime or Misdemeanor?
« on: December 04, 2018, 03:08:44 AM »
Trump's conduct is impeachable several times over already.

Which conduct is impeachable?

That you're asking, not to mention your tireless apologetics for Trump, tells me that it wouldn't be a wise use of my time.

General Comments / Re: Is Money Laundering a High Crime or Misdemeanor?
« on: November 30, 2018, 07:37:58 PM »
Trump's conduct is impeachable several times over already. The question is what will stir the Senate Republicans.

We already know that past criminal tax fraud won't.

It's going to take a lot.

General Comments / Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
« on: November 20, 2018, 02:58:59 PM »
Trump didn't start a war in Iraq, so it's going to be hard to match W for direct harm until he does start a war.

I think what gets me so upset with Trump is how many lies he's getting away with - he doesn't have to rely on faulty intelligence reports or anything to convince a large contingent of Americans to believe a large number of false things. All while directly and consistently trying to undermine the press.

General Comments / Re: Misleading or False Claims by Trump
« on: November 20, 2018, 01:17:29 PM »
Litigating the details of a particular false claim kind of misses the point - which is that he makes hundreds of false claims, some big, some small, some believable to most people (if they aren't paying attention to who he is), some believable only to people who have sold their souls to Sean Hannity.

Putin successfully created an authoritarian regime where what is objectively true isn't as important as what he declares is true. This sort of thing is happening elsewhere, and Trump is trying to make it happen here. It's incredibly important, and I think it's morally reprehensible to minimize it.

General Comments / Re: Corey Booker and Kavanaugh Hearing
« on: November 15, 2018, 01:07:39 PM »
I don't like Avenatti either, and I think Jacob Wohl is a pathetic person who would try to frame him if he thought he could, but my money right now is on Avenatti getting into some kind of altercation with a woman who is not his wife, which resulted in her being hurt in some way. He's going to mount a defense that he didn't strike her and the injury was unintentional. (Pushed her away in self defense and she fell into a door, for instance.)

Wohl is probably just trolling this time, and Avenatti is taking advantage of that for the short term cover it gives him with supporters. 

Just my general feeling.

General Comments / Re: Pittsburgh Shooter
« on: November 09, 2018, 04:31:32 PM »
"What's going to happen is the collective disgust with mass shootings is going to build up to the point that we eventually repeal the 2nd amendment."

Ha. Ha. Ha.

2/3 of both houses, 3/4 of state legislatures

You couldn't get that much support for an Amendment declaring that stop signs should be red.

Urbanization will continue, kids who aren't yet voters are growing up with the drills that most of us didn't, and the body counts are trending up. And boomers are dying off.

Yep, eventually the disgust will add up that high.

General Comments / Re: Pittsburgh Shooter
« on: November 09, 2018, 04:13:20 PM »
I think the gun lobby needs to come up with some ideas about how to prevent mass shootings.

The 2nd amendment does give people the right to own guns, and the gun lobby is very good at making sure that the guns that people can have are capable of horrific destruction. And there are already so many guns out there that even some of the mitigations the left wants won't stop the shootings.

What's going to happen is the collective disgust with mass shootings is going to build up to the point that we eventually repeal the 2nd amendment.  If the gun lobby doesn't get on board with managing gun rights to a much more effective degree, eventually the public disgust will eliminate gun rights. But a lot of bodies will pile up in the meantime.

General Comments / Re: Media Perspective
« on: November 09, 2018, 04:06:56 PM »
Sorry for the multiple posts, but I want to concede that if the issue was simply whether Jim Acosta gets to go to the White House, you would be right that it would not be a big deal.

But that's not the issue.

Trump today has been insulting more reporters, calling them stupid/losers, and indicated he might be suspending more press passes if people aren't more respectful. This for reasonable questions about his intentions with regard to Whitaker and Mueller.

It's where he wants to go with this that is the issue. He wants to control the media. He openly admires autocrats in countries where that is exactly what happens, he has repeatedly floated the idea of using the FCC to punish media companies that aren't friendly to him, and now he's escalated to banning reporters from the WH and threatening to ban others. It's going to be bad if the only people allowed to ask him questions are working for sycophantic outlets.

General Comments / Re: The Invasion
« on: November 09, 2018, 04:00:04 PM »
It sounds reasonable, until you realize that the wait times are already at a couple of weeks. CBP officials say "at capacity, no way to process them".

They are also processing fewer than they were able to process in the past, for no good reason other than trying to make the process miserable enough to deter people from applying.

General Comments / Re: Media Perspective
« on: November 09, 2018, 03:54:43 PM »
Tell me you wouldn't see it as more dangerous to freedom of press if a mob confronted Rachel Maddow's family and threatened them.  You'd be on here saying how Trump inspired it, and tripling down on your meme that Trump is threatening the press.

Who am I supposed to blame for the mob at Tucker Carlson's house? I don't have a liberal president repeatedly calling him the enemy of the people. They are apparently stupid extremists, but there's no leader calling them to these actions. If there were, I'd consider that worthy of condemnation.

Trump has a unique responsibility that he ignores, and poses a unique danger with his rhetoric. He's also uniquely bad in various ways - whatabout fails because none of his predecessors have done the things he is doing.

General Comments / Re: Media Perspective
« on: November 09, 2018, 03:45:30 PM »
I'm not angry about a doctored video.  I'm angered by the blatantly "teamist" argument that a mob threatening a conservative commentator's family is less threatening to a free press that Jim Acosta losing his press pass.  By that logic, the mail "bomber" wasn't a threat either since he didn't work for the government.

I don't think it's OK to mob reporters' houses. I don't think what happened to Carlson was OK. I am glad law enforcement got involved, if people engage in that behavior they should be charged with crimes, etc. It's a problem, and I believe it will be acknowledged as a problem and addressed to the extent that freedom of the press is not curtailed.

Does that make sense?

I think the actual leader of the country banning reporters from his press briefings using false pretenses is a more dangerous thing, because there's no clear way to address the problem - there are no police to call, no charges that can be brought - and because it's a recognizable step in the direction of authoritarian domination of the press. It's happened in other countries.

General Comments / Re: Media Perspective
« on: November 09, 2018, 02:26:31 PM »
Seriati, you're dead wrong. There is clear documentation that the video the press secretary shared was doctored. Not "the videos", but that video. If you refuse to see it, there's not much I can do for you.

Your defensive anger is telling.

General Comments / Re: Media Perspective
« on: November 08, 2018, 07:17:24 PM »
Media response?  Claim the video has been doctored - nevermind that if you look at their own versions you still see him do it.

The doctoring of the video is an outrage, putting aside one's feelings about Acosta. If you watch the two videos in slow motion side by side you'll see that in the one it looks like he preemtively chops her hand away (making it feel more like "get out of here"), while in the other it looks like he responded on instinct to a hand reaching into his space and grabbing the mic he was holding, making it feel a lot more like self-defence if you want to call it that. Before I knew the context of why she was grabbing it away and just watched the videos, it looked like she was borderline assaulting him and that his response was actually quite minor and smooth all things considered. Someone else (let's say it was a woman, and not him, and one who had previously been an assault victim) might well have felt actually threatened by her move and the reflex would not only have been warranted but actually they would have been painted as having been attacked. It all depends on spin, right?

What Acosta actually did is refuse to let go of the microphone. He didn't push or manhandle the woman at all. The contact with the woman was incidental to her grabbing the microphone.

I'm disturbed to see that Seriati thinks that regardless of which video you watch, "he did it". Because the WH's version of "it" is false.

General Comments / Re: Media Perspective
« on: November 08, 2018, 07:13:49 PM »
There have been statements of solidarity and condemnation against the idiots at Carlson's house. Several are here.

I've seen similar statements from dozens of journalists and pundits on Twitter.

What happened to Tucker Carlson's family is worse than what happened to Acosta in terms of personal impact. But the latter is much more ominous when it comes to freedom of the press.

First, the federal government will always have infinitely more ability to interfere with constitutional rights than small groups of people without official power. That's such a fundamental thing that it underlies the separation of powers and checks and balances built into the Constitution.

Why this incident with Acosta is threatening: WH used a false pretext for banning Acosta. They straight up lied about what happened. Then Sarah Sanders shared a doctored video to bolster the lie.

As international journalists have pointed out, this is a familiar pattern. It's part of a playbook. The lie isn't meant to be convincing, it's meant to separate loyalists from opposition.

Acosta may be a jerk. He may have asked more questions than he was invited to ask. The proper response to this is not to lie about what happened and revoke his security credentials. It might be to skip him the next couple of times? Or turn off the microphone?

WH taking offense at Acosta's behavior is transparently self serving. Insist that reporters be polite while Trump shrieks about "enemy of the people" and insists that documenting his pervasive lies is "fake news". 

But this goes well beyond taking unearned offense at impolite behavior. It's a gambit testing WH's ability to coerce more friendly treatment from journalists.

He tweets or says things that he knows will generate negative news coverage. The birthright citizenship thing was an example. I believe he had two reasons: He was continuing his strategy of making the midterms about supposed dangers of immigrants, and wanted to move some of the coverage away from Pittsburgh.

My dad believed that environmentalist efforts were a waste of time because of some scripture that said there's plenty for everyone. He's not great with nuance.

Right. Trump drives the news cycle. There are reports from WH staffers indicating this is a deliberate strategy.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 8