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 ... 7
General Comments / Re: Invest in automation
« on: October 10, 2018, 06:31:51 PM »
Unless we botch it and create a SkyNet or Omnius, robot labor should be a good time for all of us.  Once we wrap our head around that kind of world.

It should ALREADY be a good time for all of us. To an extent it is - lots of us have smartphones - but the benefits of increases in productivity have largely accrued to a tiny percentage of the population. I think it's going to go badly. Either oligarchy or revolution. I hope I'm wrong though.

It's theoretically possible for a subordinate to sexually harass the boss, sure. Bosses normally have an easier time of shutting it down without incurring negative consequences for themselves, but it could happen and it should have consequences for the harasser.

Here's the thing though: even if an underling instigates an inappropriate incident on her own (and I don't believe that's what happened with Lewinsky, but for the sake of argument) - it would still be entirely inappropriate for the boss to accept it, encourage it, or escalate it. And if he does, an employer - or an oversight body - should treat it the same as if he was the sole aggressor. Part of his job is to shut that kind of thing down immediately and take steps to prevent it from recurring.

General Comments / Re: Hey Doc--I figured out a treatment for schizophrenia
« on: September 13, 2018, 09:30:01 PM »
sp, I sent you an email. If you can't access that email would you mind using the email link in my profile to send me one and let me know an address that works?

General Comments / Re: Hey Doc--I figured out a treatment for schizophrenia
« on: September 13, 2018, 06:35:26 PM »
We should grab lunch or coffee sometime. No rush on my part - I have crippling social anxiety anyway, and am recently dry so it's worse at the moment.

Accelerating growth in national deficit. 

That's about all I feel confident about.

My prediction was right!

General Comments / Re: Hey Doc--I figured out a treatment for schizophrenia
« on: September 13, 2018, 04:29:50 PM »
I've rarely felt so compelled to say something and so unsure of what it is I want to say - or maybe I always feel that way, but I'm especially conscious of it at the moment.

I want to welcome you and calm you and chide you and encourage you. But I'm not qualified to help, and not sure how to tell when any of those actions would make sense.

It's really good to know that you're seeking some help. It's actually really good to read your words again. I enjoyed your posts, always, but not always for the best reasons. There were times when I wondered if you were OK, but I let go of those thoughts. Those times were mostly when you hinted (or outright said, and I don't remember which way it went) that the rest of us could not understand you fully. I think I decided that you meant that we weren't catching all your puns. Which made sense - I thought I was probably catching a fraction of the hard ones but I always believed that I was missing something. Yeah, apparently that was part of what you meant, but I never guessed at the extent or nature of the conversations you were having. Right now I'm consoling myself that I couldn't have pushed you to get help sooner. That's to try to make myself feel better about pushing away those occasional doubts.

Also, you seem...hale. But you deserve more rest than you probably know what feels like.

I hope you always keep writing, if it's helpful to you. You do have a unique gift for it.

The tweet isn't an order because we don't live in a country where private businesses can be ordered to do something by the President via tweet. It's not an order because there is simply no chance that it will be treated as such.

It's still very disturbing that Trump evinces the desire to violate the 1st amendment on a frequent basis. This may be political commentary, but the political position he's advocating for is totalitarianism. His continued fondness for brutal dictators gives the same impression.

The media lying and misrepresenting for political purposes directly harms this country.  Is calling them "enemy of the people" a bridge too far?

I'd like you to do a thought experiment and ask yourself how you'd have reacted if Obama, in office, had repeatedly called right-leaning media "the enemy of the people" and suggested that their 1st amendment rights should be curtailed. 

It's several bridges too far, and I'm disappointed in you.

General Comments / Re: Trump verses Google Search
« on: August 30, 2018, 04:33:30 PM »
Google can't be transparent about its trade secrets, really.

I suspect the most controversial part of their algorithm would be which sites they consider news sites.  Although I think they are already too generous with that.

Nazis have badly broken moral compasses.

Multiply that by the fact that political activism is always about something controversial, not about whether babies should be allowed to nap or about whether the USA should just go ahead and hand over the keys to DPRK.

It's a really safe rule of thumb, as such things go.

General Comments / Re: The Manafort Question
« on: August 15, 2018, 11:26:59 PM »
You've got a good point, Donald. I have been following as closely as I can, but the information I have access to only accounts for a small fraction of what has transpired in the courtroom.

General Comments / Re: The Manafort Question
« on: August 14, 2018, 05:40:19 PM »
With the amount of hard evidence presented at trial and the multiple witnesses alleging Manafort's awareness and participation, I think his only chance to avoid conviction on at least some of the counts is a rogue juror - someone willing to ignore jury instructions. I don't think he's going to get a jury nullification, but a hung jury is possible. Maybe someone who lied about their bias during selection, or someone who can't stomach Gates getting the better end of the deal.

Fascinating read, though I could have done without the unsubstantiated digs the author threw in on Trump's truthfulness generally.  They seem to have only been included to "prove" the author was on the right side of the anti-Trump aisle.

It's funny that you would say unsubstantiated, since there's a link in the story to some pretty exhaustive substantiation.

You shouldn't really be spared the discomfort of being reminded that Trump is constant liar.

General Comments / Re: Trump Putin Summit
« on: July 20, 2018, 01:51:20 PM »
Other reporting indicates that Trump has had knowledge of Putin's personal involvement since before his inauguration. He was briefed on the intelligence.

If you wonder why John Brennan is apoplectic, it's because he knows that Trump knows, and yet has to watch things playing out like the rest of us.

What would turn Trump to my favor?

For a start, apologize sincerely to the literally hundreds of people he has publicly insulted and humiliated.
Apologize for commenting on investigations in process, and never do it again.
Personally retract his comment saying he would order American soldiers to kill relatives of terrorists, which is a war crime.
Admit that he had no evidence that Obama tapped his phones, or that there were 3 million illegal votes.
Admit he was a major force behind the lie that Obama was not born in the US.
Admit that the women accusing him of sexual harassment and assault are not all liars.

That's off the top of my head.
Notice that these are not policy positions. These are not things that Republicans do or Democrats don't. These are evidence that he is a total a**hole, and not a person who should be representing our country.

I'd like him to acknowledge and apologize for the atrocity of stealing young children from their parents in some kind of attempt to scare people away from the border, and take steps to mitigate the damage done. 

Pence will provide the judges and the anti-immigrant rhetoric and the tax cuts, without all the garbage Trump brings.  So there is no rational reason to keep him.

Well, there is. It's the same reason that the GOP is afraid to criticize him. If Trump goes down, it demoralizes the people who voted for him. If Trump goes down, the midterm election is a huge blue wave.

Rational, but not moral.

General Comments / Re: whats up with all the rallies
« on: July 12, 2018, 07:45:46 PM »
I woke up this morning and what was on tv?  An unscheduled international presser by President Trump.  I watched him do an excellent job answering questions for 15 minutes, with clear answers and great transparency.  And at the end of it, I was so furious with the US media that I couldn't see straight.

The international media asked questions that were relevant and that had substantive answers that had impact on their lives and they got answers.  I'm struck by how our US media uses the pressers as an opportunity to grandstand and uses questions to make political points rather than to get substantive answers.  If you've ever seen the media ask 15 versions of the same question you should know what I'm talking about, they have an agenda to get a specific soundbite, not an actual answer.  If you really want to know why we don't have informative press conferences this one showed exactly why, our "journalists" are political activists first.

Had you had your coffee yet?  I'm partway through the transcript, and I'm seeing repetitive, critical questions.  And the answers are word salad.

What part of this impressed you?

I don't have to read snopes, I read the bill, at least the parts that pertain to this 55 gallon limit. It clearly states that the utilities are responsible, not individuals. It also clearly states that this target is 20% below existing levels. So while your numbers may be correct for the average American, it clearly is not relevant to what californians might have to give up.

Your contempt is nauseating.

He's citing numbers that are overall domestic usage per person and household - including outdoor use. The 55/50 limit was interior household water usage.

Comparing snopes to infowars is irrational.


There's no penalty for individual consumers.

Not to mention 55 (or 50) gallons per day per person on average does not equate to being restricted to 55 gallons on a given day.

I've got 5 kids and a wife. Our household generates around 1.5 loads of laundry per day, and we've got lots of room for improvement there - we end up washing a lot of the kids' clothes after being worn once when they are probably good for a couple more days (particularly pants).  Some of them are small, so if we continue washing jeans after a single day our household might end up generating 2 or 2.5 loads of laundry per day when they get bigger. 

2.5 x 40 = 100. 
If we all take a 17 gallon shower 6 days a week and a 40 gallon bath once a week, the daily average for the household will be 142 gallons. 

So between (overly frequent) laundry and bathing we're at about 70% of a 50 gallon per person per day budget.  Add 5 flushes a day per person and we're up to 85%.  Leaving a pretty good margin for sink faucets and the ice maker, as far as I can tell. 


Wow, that’s the very best example of grasping at straws I’ve ever seen.

But no, when Flynn was charged , nobody thought he’d lied to the FBI. Flynn was prosecuted for a crime nobody thought he committed. Flynn maintained his innocence right up until they coerced him into the plea.

 It’s exactly what it looks like.

This is the dumbest talking point. This kind of charge is not supposed to be predicated on impressions of interviewing agents. Flynn did lie. The charging document covers the evidence that he lied. Your assertion that nobody thought he lied when he was charged is completely false, based on the ridiculous concept that interviewing agent impression of body language preempts the actual evidence.

General Comments / Re: NFL fines for disrespect
« on: May 24, 2018, 11:17:16 AM »
It's obvious that employers can require things of their employees although I think there's some potential for further development here because there's a free speech issue. Free speech is not an absolute right but limits on it need to be examined.

I think it's pretty clear that Donald's point was that the NFL was pretending not to understand the players motivation for their protest. It's been a common theme. Instead of trusting Kaepernick and others to say why they're protesting and what they want, it gets reframed as some sort of disrespect for the military or other completely distorted versions of what they're doing.

Personally I don't give a crap about the NFL, but I'm even more unlikely to start giving a crap now. I think they are caving to nationalistic demagoguery on the part of politicians.

General Comments / Re: Stormy Daniels and the Surreal Reality
« on: May 16, 2018, 04:06:53 PM »
I am sympathetic to the opinion that it would be ridiculous to try to take Trump down over this particular peccadillo. I don't think it CAN happen. He isn't going to have his party turn on him over this (after all, it's just additional color on things that were already known about his character).

But if it COULD be done, I'd be fine with it. It's not like we can't field presidents who HAVEN'T done this kind of thing.

Avenatti's PR for his case as a political campaign is an interesting angle, but I'm gonna guess he's not billing his client for the TV appearances anyway.

General Comments / Re: Racism or rational response to trespassing
« on: May 16, 2018, 02:49:51 PM »
I think Crunch is probably right on this one.
Ummm... which part?  The part where he characterizes the men's actions as "cashing in on an “undisclosed financial settlement“ from Starbucks"?

Clearly, not the settlement that has now been disclosed for 2 weeks.  Clearly not the part where they were "cashing in on" their one-dollar settlement.  Maybe it was the part where he implies that their associate "magically appears"?

Thanks, I was a little startled that he appeared to be getting away with that one.

General Comments / Re: Trump just won the 2020 election
« on: May 04, 2018, 12:33:08 PM »
When it comes to dairy and grapes, I think regional designations actually make some sense.  I don't know if this holds true for apples, but the local environment and farming customs do affect the characteristics of dairy products as well as grapes.

While the sellers main motivation is to preserve the reputation of their products - and their profits - it does benefit the consumer when it comes to consistency and predictability. After all, to the degree that "Parmesan" doesn't tell a consumer that their cheese comes from a particular region with regulations that predict the characteristics of the product? It also doesn't tell them whether what they are buying is what they expect.

General Comments / Re: Stormy Daniels and the Surreal Reality
« on: May 03, 2018, 05:28:37 PM »
When asked why Cohen paid Daniels the money, Giuliani said Cohen made the allegations against Trump go away, saying "he did his job."

“Imagine if that came out on Oct. 15, 2016, in the middle of the last debate with Hillary Clinton?" Giuliani asked.

"Cohen made it go away," he added. "He did his job."

General Comments / Re: Stormy Daniels and the Surreal Reality
« on: May 03, 2018, 04:20:26 PM »
There's literally no way to establish that where you have a celebrity that has a practice of paying for NDAs that predates his campaign.  In fact, it's almost certain that the opposite conclusion would be held.

In theory there certainly is a way to establish this, such as if the people involved made statements that the purpose of the payoff was to influence the outcome of the election.  Giuliani has now suggested this was the case.  Who knows what else lurks on Cohen's seized devices? If coupled with an admission that they want to keep this off the campaign books, you even get a crime-fraud exception.

I get it, you guys are looking for a crime for Trump to be guilty of, no matter how implausible, but this isn't likely to be it.

Indeed, we're watching closely, and Trump's constant telegraphing that he's worried about what the investigations will find helps hold our attention.

Note that I didn't make a claim about how likely it was that Trump would be guilty of a crime here. I was responding to your claim that if Trump used his own funds then the possibility of violations was pretty much eliminated. However the funds were accounted for, if the intent to influence the election can be established it's still arguably in violation of campaign finance laws since it wasn't reported. I'll grant that Trump's (no doubt extensive) history of paying off people with dirt on him will help his argument on THIS particular hush operation.

Loan from Michael Cohen to the campaign required filings (he was paid back in installments over time).

Legal services and expenses are routinely billed after the expense is incurred, this is not a "loan."   By this interpretation every campaign in history has violated the campaign finance laws by failing to report the services they received and later paid for as "campaign contributions."

You're off track. If it was a campaign expenditure then it had to be reported, whether it was a "loan" or a "service" or an "expense". The question is whether it was a campaign expenditure, which depends on facts that we don't know (but investigators might know). Certainly Giuliani has suggested that it was by asking us to imagine if [Clifford's story] had come out during the final debate, in order to understand Cohen's motivations at the time.

General Comments / Re: Stormy Daniels and the Surreal Reality
« on: May 03, 2018, 12:23:51 PM »
"But I don't really see how it's a violation of the law to use campaign money on PR for the candidate..."

You have to account for campaign money regardless.

General Comments / Re: Stormy Daniels and the Surreal Reality
« on: May 03, 2018, 12:22:59 PM »
Intent to influence the election = in-kind campaign contribution.

Loan from Michael Cohen to the campaign required filings (he was paid back in installments over time).

So no, this doesn't clear the air.

I think it'd go a long way to substantiating some kind of collusion between Trump or his campaign and Russia.

I'm already fairly convinced there's something there - Trump's deference to Putin and tendency to act guilty on the subject of Russian interference, combined with the way Flynn and Sessions seemed to want to hide conversations with Russians, combined with the campaign meeting about the stolen emails and the attempted coverup of that, combined with the Steele dossier - I think it adds up.  But I know it's not enough to act on.  I'm not proposing that the country should act in accordance with the implications of my conspiracy theories. :)

But if they prove Cohen was in Prague, I think it's just a matter of time before the collusion can be proven. It's a key part of the dossier and has been denied emphatically. I would have given low odds that he was actually there - it seemingly would have required some cloak and dagger maneuvering - but his dropping these suits just when some of his secrets might be exposed makes me reluctant to dismiss the possibility.

General Comments / Re: Justice and murder by the mentally ill
« on: April 18, 2018, 02:58:57 PM »
I think punitive justice is a fiction.

Locking the woman up might be justified absent advances in psychology that can more or less guarantee that she is not too dangerous to live as an ordinary citizen, since she's demonstrated that she sometimes is too dangerous.

Locking up the woman to deter others from killing children is probably also justified (although I think it's worth studying how much punishment creates how much deterrence - on a perpetual basis).

Locking the woman up to balance out the harm she did makes zero sense. 

General Comments / Re: Racism or rational response to trespassing
« on: April 17, 2018, 12:49:45 PM »
Yeah 911 was a pretty silly move. 

In a perfect world: You didn't buy anything, you accede when asked to leave. You have no reason to be angry about this.

In reality: You're probably right that you're getting asked to leave in part because you are black. You should probably still leave, but you are probably not wrong to be angry about getting singled out. Not leaving as a form of civil disobedience is an option you have, but deploying it is a risky option.

Just a side observation: In general, truly public restrooms should be far more common in urban areas. Retail stores shouldn't have to deal with people dropping by solely to use the facilities. I don't doubt that some retailers would prefer to keep that traffic, but society should still provide facilities for public use.

General Comments / Re: Facebook neutrality
« on: April 16, 2018, 01:41:13 PM »
Facebook has no incentive to do this. There doesn't seem to be any evidence that they do this. Why do you believe they do this?

General Comments / Re: Facebook neutrality
« on: April 12, 2018, 05:35:38 PM »
I'm not sure what we're talking about here.  There was a controversy during the 2016 campaign about the "Trending" section on FB - some anonymous ex-employee claimed that it was routine to exclude conservative viewpoints from that section, but FB already responded pretty convincingly.

Cruz was grilling Zuckerberg about the idea that some right-leaning pages get shut down and Zuckerberg denied that the company attempts to suppress right leaning political voices. 

My own feed is completely full of right wing stuff unless I take steps to screen it out.

What are we talking about here?

General Comments / Re: House Closes Investigation
« on: April 12, 2018, 12:44:43 PM »
The FBI and the US Attorney's office aren't saying this is Criminal Trump.  They are saying this is Criminal Cohen. 

But yeah, I had thought it was signed off by the Trump appointee at first, and I don't know anything about the politics or interests of those in his office who are acting in his place here.  Still, the process of getting the warrant tends to reassure me.

General Comments / Re: House Closes Investigation
« on: April 11, 2018, 02:36:36 PM »
Apparently sometimes the review is contracted out to an independent law firm instead of a "dirty team". *shrug*

General Comments / Re: House Closes Investigation
« on: April 10, 2018, 02:59:52 PM »
It's about Cohen!  The warrant was predicated on suspected crimes that Cohen is being investigated for.

General Comments / Re: House Closes Investigation
« on: April 10, 2018, 02:58:32 PM »
Just as a reminder, Mueller already handed this off to the regional US Attorney's office.  The raid was not a part of the Mueller investigation.

General Comments / Re: House Closes Investigation
« on: April 10, 2018, 02:47:13 PM »
Just to elaborate on this:
There shouldn't be any warrant that allows that to occur.

The warrant can allow this kind of thing to be seized but not necessarily reviewed by investigators.  There are screening procedures to separate privileged material from non-privileged material. 

Letting the target of an investigation do the screening isn't always feasible, for obvious reasons.  The goal is to preserve the attorney-client privilege, not violate it, but otherwise allow the search to succeed. There are rules and procedures and legal precedent already established for this kind of screening.

And as you know there's a crime-fraud exception to the privilege anyway.  Otherwise criminal conspiracies would be immune to prosecution by having the conspiracy involve an attorney.

We don't have all the details, but if you've gotten to the point that you can justify a search warrant of an attorney's office, you can't trust the attorney to help you identify which materials are subject to the privilege, can you?

General Comments / Re: House Closes Investigation
« on: April 10, 2018, 02:33:54 PM »
There are some decent articles about it available.

DoJ has some rules in place to discourage this kind of search if less intrusive methods will (or ought to) work. What we can surmise from the fact that the search occurred is that the U.S. Attorney's office in question made an argument that less invasive methods were likely to:

...compromise the criminal investigation or prosecution, or could result in the obstruction or destruction of evidence, or would otherwise be ineffective.

This was then approved by the head of that office (who Trump appointed recently) after consultation with the Criminal Division of DoJ. 

Then that was approved by a magistrate.

To this point, it's not impossible that it was the wrong course of action, but it's pretty unlikely to clear ALL of those hurdles unless there was a compelling reason to use a search warrant instead of a subpoena.

There are also standards in place to avoid violating the attorney-client privilege when such material is seized. It's not going to be completely opened up to investigators for wholesale review.

General Comments / Re: Stormy Daniels and the Surreal Reality
« on: March 29, 2018, 04:20:27 PM »
Unfortunately it's not a joke.

It makes a mockery of the concept. Voter nullification suggests that people's votes are being blocked or discounted. Feeling discouraged because the president you voted for is a scumbag, which you somehow only figured out because of coverage on CNN, is not an example of disenfranchisement.

Oh well, it's a pretty slogan about making every vote count even if its a lie.

You might want to clearly identify your targets. I've never said that I want all stupid people to vote for stupid reasons.

General Comments / Re: Stormy Daniels and the Surreal Reality
« on: March 28, 2018, 04:28:09 PM »
CNN wants ratings, obviously.  The salaciousness is enough of an explanation for why they are giving it airtime. 

But how many on the left would insist on eliminating a liberal candidate because they were a cheater?  Or removing one from office? 

Remember Anthony Weiner? 

In fact, Democrats have done a lot of navel gazing over how they defended Bill Clinton, and there's been a lot of acknowledgement that what he did was indefensible. 

Hint: the left isn't amoral.  Certainly a business entity like CNN might be, but you were painting with a broader brush.  And of course Democrats are partisan and it sometimes blinds them, but that is not nearly as extreme a claim as "they don't think cheating is wrong". 

Did you intend your mention of "voter nullification" as a joke?  Because it is one either way.  That's CNN you're talking about.

As for whether the affairs are newsworthy, yes. 

1) The integrity of the President matters.  It's been clear to most for some time that he has none, but some remain unconvinced. Blatantly lying about the affairs and the coverups might help convince some people that they misjudged him as having some decency. (His wife had a newborn baby, for goodness sake.)

2) The corruptibility of the President matters.  He's got a history of paying hush money.  How extensive and varied the reasons for this is a matter of national interest.  Who else has leverage on him?

3) Campaign finance laws might have been violated.

I'm not going to deny that there's a substantial amount of schadenfreude involved in finding this whole matter interesting.  And because Trump is doing a huge amount of damage, and because his tenure is likely to further entrench the oligarchic trend in our government, and because the GOP in general is likely to continue much of what he's doing, yes, it would be great if embarrassing him, exposing his venality and dishonesty and hypocrisy, and shining a light on how he has debased the office had the side effect of depressing voter enthusiasm among the classes of voters who were stupid enough to think he would be a good President.

General Comments / Re: Comrade Trump and Russian insurgent hackers
« on: February 22, 2018, 12:57:57 PM »
My understanding is that the Logan act has never resulted in a conviction, but that it is still a law that could be used to prosecute someone, and might be used if someone was to deliberately and secretly undermine the foreign policy of the sitting executive.  I think Flynn's conversations with the Russian ambassador - if they included any pressure to take acts or refrain from acts, in ways that conflicted with Obama's foreign policy - appear to be that kind of violation of the Logan act. 

I understand that many people have offered opinions to the contrary.  However, there is no unanimity of opinion on this topic, and I think there are credible arguments that the Logan act can be enforced constitutionally, and is applicable in this situation.  It has yet to be fully tested in court.

As for the "lying" charge, I think Mueller is probably depending on a difference between what happened, what Flynn knew, and what Flynn told the FBI, rather than an impression the interviewing agents had at that time.

General Comments / Re: Comrade Trump and Russian insurgent hackers
« on: February 21, 2018, 01:56:27 PM »
If by "most recent understanding" you mean "most recent right wing talking point", I guess.

General Comments / Re: Comrade Trump and Russian insurgent hackers
« on: February 20, 2018, 03:46:52 PM »
The Holt interview is far from the only evidence there is about why he fired Comey. 

The Rosenstein memo has some reasoning that Trump, interestingly, has failed to repeat or reinforce. 

He has, however, made up some things about the FBI being in turmoil. 

General Comments / Re: Comrade Trump and Russian insurgent hackers
« on: February 20, 2018, 03:01:09 PM »
Asking for leniency if the breaches were unintentional isn't terrible unreasonable, heck Comey had just made up an intent requirement to keep Hillary out of jail and there was little question she intentionally created her server to keep her communications out of the public view.

How would you feel if Obama had pulled Comey aside to ask for leniency? 

Of course it was horribly improper.

General Comments / Re: Comrade Trump and Russian insurgent hackers
« on: February 20, 2018, 02:59:28 PM »
That's the Lester Holt interview, which by the way if you read the transcript, clearly shows the Comey reference was an after thought.  Flipping that around to being the primary or sole reason as you implied is a bad faith misrepresentation. 

In my view, this is one of those memes that the left has repeated to itself so many times, that they stopped actually presenting evidence and have forgotten that they haven't actually proved it.  It's barely even plausible as - we all know - that firing Comey doesn't stop a "Russian investigation".

1) You're not making sense, what do you mean by "the Comey reference"?  The question is why did Trump fire Comey, so how can a reference to Comey be an after thought? 

2) Trump can't know that there's no collusion between members of his campaign and Russia.  Even if that's his opinion, what you are suggesting here undermines the narrative that you're trying to sell.  He wasn't trying to interfere with the investigation, except maybe he knows it was a waste of time, so in that case he knows it was a waste of resources anyway so it would be fine to try to interfere with it? 

General Comments / Re: Release the memo
« on: January 31, 2018, 07:07:25 PM »
I note, the FBI sources previously confirmed that there are no factual inaccuracies, which left very little ground to dispute an apparent conclusion.

You know better than this.  Selectively chosen facts can seem to support false conclusions. 

And you also know that the fact set is largely classified - and that the FBI can't unilaterally declassify anything to defend itself.   

Even Congressional democrats are relatively powerless to rebut anything misleading, given that the GOP controls the relevant committees.

So if Nunes et al want to distort and mislead, they can.  And the FBI doesn't really have a way to correct the record.

General Comments / Re: State of the Union response
« on: January 31, 2018, 01:07:28 PM »
Trump himself has proven thoroughly that his words cannot be trusted.  Why would you applaud lies about unity and cooperation?

General Comments / Re: Going nuts for nutella
« on: January 26, 2018, 01:00:37 PM »
I guess it's useful to be reminded that the veneer of civilization requires active maintenance.

General Comments / Re: Trump won't make Clinton's mistake
« on: January 25, 2018, 06:13:32 PM »
Luckily he never says anything untrue or breaks a promise.

General Comments / Re: Tall order
« on: January 25, 2018, 06:13:02 PM »
You know, in the wake of Weinstein, it seems a bit silly to worry about such puritanical extremes.  We're not on that side of the spectrum.

General Comments / Re: Star Wars: The Last Jedi
« on: January 10, 2018, 05:30:32 PM »
Ren was hiding his thoughts by creating the impression that his thoughts about killing Snoke were thoughts about killing Rey. This mask allows him to get away with the manipulation.

That's what you saw them showing in the film? I.e. you observed this as being what was overtly being told? Or did you sort of gather this after the fact as what must have happened?

Yeah, Snoke's monologue gave it away.  He could see Kylo Ren thinking about striking down "his true enemy". 

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7