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
1
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.

2
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.

3
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.

4
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.

5
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. 

Quote
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.

6
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. 

https://www.c-span.org/video/?448369-1/president-trump-calls-nato-alliance-very-unified-strong&start=2

What part of this impressed you?

7
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.

8
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/california-laundry-and-shower/

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. 

Scary.

9
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.

10
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.


11
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.

12
General Comments / Re: Racism or rational response to trespassing
« on: May 16, 2018, 02:49:51 PM »
Quote
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.

13
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.

14
General Comments / Re: Stormy Daniels and the Surreal Reality
« on: May 03, 2018, 05:28:37 PM »
Quote
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."

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/386035-giuliani-imagine-if-that-came-out-in-the-middle-of-the-last

15
General Comments / Re: Stormy Daniels and the Surreal Reality
« on: May 03, 2018, 04:20:26 PM »
Quote
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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.

16
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.

17
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.

18
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.

19
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. 

20
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.

21
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?

22
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.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/facebook-trending-stories-algorithm-carefully-shaped-by-editors/

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?

23
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.

24
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*

25
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.

26
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.

27
General Comments / Re: House Closes Investigation
« on: April 10, 2018, 02:47:13 PM »
Just to elaborate on this:
Quote
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?

28
General Comments / Re: House Closes Investigation
« on: April 10, 2018, 02:33:54 PM »
There are some decent articles about it available. 

https://reason.com/archives/2018/04/09/what-we-know-about-the-search-trump-lawy/amp?__twitter_impression=true

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:

Quote
...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.

29
General Comments / Re: Stormy Daniels and the Surreal Reality
« on: March 29, 2018, 04:20:27 PM »
Quote
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.

Quote
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.

30
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. 

Quote
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.

31
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.

32
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.

33
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. 

34
General Comments / Re: Comrade Trump and Russian insurgent hackers
« on: February 20, 2018, 03:01:09 PM »
Quote
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.

35
General Comments / Re: Comrade Trump and Russian insurgent hackers
« on: February 20, 2018, 02:59:28 PM »
Quote
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? 

36
General Comments / Re: Release the memo
« on: January 31, 2018, 07:07:25 PM »
Quote
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.

37
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?

38
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.

39
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.

40
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.

41
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". 

42
General Comments / Re: Weinstein mess
« on: December 11, 2017, 05:17:56 PM »
I don't think anyone was misled in a way that matters.  Whether they believed the annotation was written by the same person as the inscription and signature wouldn't, in my opinion, sway their opinion on whether it would have been a creepy move in the first place.  I think the only people who think this admission looks good for Moore are the same people who didn't believe her in the first place.

43
General Comments / Re: Weinstein mess
« on: December 11, 2017, 03:07:14 PM »
Quote
There should be no confusion here, Nelson admitted this on ABC News
Thanks Crunch.  I had heard or read that was the case but thought maybe it was muddier than that due to DonaldD's post.  Will try and watch the clip later. 

I don't think you should thank Crunch just yet.  It's much muddier than "she admitted to forgery". 

She wrote an annotation with date and location under the part she claims Moore wrote. 

She has not admitted that she "forged" anything.  Admittedly it was dumb not to delineate the part she wrote and the part she claims Moore wrote from the get-go.  But look at what Crunch is doing here:

Quote
So now we have a yearbook where at least some of it was forged (and the accuser admits to the forgery) and a key facet of the story built against Moore has been completely falsified.

1) "Some of it was forged" is only true if she represented the part she wrote as something that Moore wrote.  Did she do that, or was that simply one possible assumption people could make when they saw the yearbook?  She should have been clearer (her attorney certainly should have anticipated this as well), but she never specifically claimed that Moore wrote the annotation that she has now clarified that she added. 

2) The annotation was not a "key facet" and which person wrote the annotation does not speak to whether her allegations against Moore are true.  The "completely falsified" claim is completely false.



44
General Comments / Re: Weinstein mess
« on: December 07, 2017, 06:49:50 PM »
Quote
Vetted by a group like WaPo?  :o Right.

Argument by incredulity works every time when it's the evil liberal  media.

Quote
I just don’t go for mob rule, trying, convicting, and sentencing in the court of public opinion.

The sentence in this case would be NOT getting elected.  You want voters to wait for proof beyond a reasonable doubt?  That's pretty stupid, and I'd wager you've taken the opposite position with regard to other races and candidates. 

45
Quote
How exactly did you do so? 

I used google for something like 60 seconds and found a clip from the time frame and sources that were supposed to have completely neglected the trial.  The clip was about the trial.

So the claim you posted was false, easily disprovable, and doesn't speak well to the reliability of the MRC if they are the source of the claim.

Quote
Because that's virtually all the MRC does, time stories and look for bias.  Do you have a reason to doubt their measures on something that can obviously be measured on an objective basis?

Yeah, I doubt them because the claim was easy to disprove.  The claim was zero coverage on nightly news programs on ABC, CBS, and NBC.  That's not true. 

Quote
Because network evening news has a LOT of viewers and, in my view, they're more passive than other news consumers.  They are the most persuadable, because they are the least likely to be active consumers of news, and it's it been my specific thesis all along that the media distorts the world to support the left and pull down the right.  Choosing to ignore a Senator's corruption trial because of party, when it would be on every night if the parties were reversed is good evidence of that.

What I was asking you is why the benchmark is MENENDEZ.  The MRC cherry picks its data if this is the measurement taken in isolation from other stories that are about the same type of thing, like the supposed corruption in the Clinton foundation. 

Quote
I see.  Your argument is that in 2 months, there wasn't any time to cover the first trial of sitting senator for corruption since the 80's   Really?  Not enough time for a one minute update?  Lol.

As I pointed out, this is a false straw man, and you still apparently haven't checked whether it's true.

Quote
the lack of coverage is just a fact, an objective fact

Yeah, how much coverage there was is an objective fact, but what that means is not.  MRC is not out to provide objective analysis, they are out to prove a conclusion that they formed decades ago. 

In my opinion, much of what is termed "liberal bias" is actually a more informed point of view.  "Conservative" viewpoints include creationism, widespread voter fraud, Trump isn't an embarrassing disaster, and a bunch of other erroneous positions based on ignorance.

46
It was pointed out to me that the trial of Robert Menendez, a sitting Senator, for corruption has received zero evening news coverage on NBC, CBS and ABC. 

It didn't take me very long to determine that this is not true. 

How much coverage on the nightly news on those networks was there?  It wasn't zero, that much was easy.  But I don't have a handy, exhaustive list of the stories that they DID run, so I don't know.  Why did you believe it was zero? How did you confirm that?

Why is this the benchmark we're using?  I have a feeling it's because someone wanted to find an angle that demonstrated the bias of the mainstream news media, and not the outcome of dispassionate analysis.

We also have two mass shootings, one of which was the worst ever, in the same time frame, the aftermath of some of the most destructive hurricanes ever, and a president who doesn't stop generating news - from simple gaffes to international incidents - on a daily basis even if we exclude everything Russia.

If that's not enough, how about you recall that there's also ubiquitous coverage of scandals involving HRC and the DNC.

I'm afraid your case isn't very persuasive. 

47
General Comments / Re: pardon me
« on: August 28, 2017, 12:45:21 PM »
Quote
They could have overturned any detention...

:D  You've really jumped the shark, man.  If the problem is the sheriff is detaining too many people via illegal racial profiling, just "overturn the detentions".  Those people will get their lost time and money and dignity back.  It won't cost money like an appeal would.  :D

Quote
The order that he not obey the law...

The order was based on a finding of fact that his version of "obeying the law" violated the constitutional rights of the detainees.  The "reasonable belief" standard in this law was never defined in a way that supports your claim that a reasonable belief somehow rules out discriminatory or unconstitutional practices. 

48
General Comments / Re: Charlottsville
« on: August 18, 2017, 12:26:18 AM »
Yep.  There aren't "two sides".  Antifa doesn't represent normal liberal demonstrators who made up the majority of counter-protesters.  And their tactics HAVE been repeatedly disavowed by groups that aren't antifa. 

Even so, antifa's tactics are deplorable but their aims aren't. 

It's wrong to:
1) equate brawling with vehicular homicide
2) equate violent antifascism with violent neo-Nazi white nationalism.  The violence is wrong but the ideological endgame is vastly different.
3) equate antifa with one of two sides.  Nope.  The left in general doesn't embrace antifa, antifa doesn't represent them, The Left can't control them, etc.  It's also wrong to equate the right in general with the alt-right.
4) ignore the context and impact of the actions of various factions

Also, Fenring, before I hurry up and forget my password again, I want to point out that your definition of terrorism is stupid.  You can figure out the implicit political demands in the alt-right's demonstration in Charlottesville.  You can do it.  You don't have to play dumb about what they want, and the symbolism of their torches.  Don't be so determined to stake out the centrist position that you end up acting dumb like that.

49
General Comments / Re: Destruction and theft of cultural heritage
« on: August 18, 2017, 12:14:11 AM »
<can't resist the low hanging fruit in this thread, digs up password>

Fenring, you should look up the creed - well, it's more of a values statement - of the Detroit Satanic Temple.  You couldn't be more wrong about the morality of their religion.  They don't worship evil, they don't even believe in the devil as a being.   They believe in empathy, justice, and other things like that. 

When you say something like this:

Quote
if you want to be pedantic about it Hitler's got nothing on THE DEVIL.


you are arguing from within the context of religions that believe in the devil as a being who is purely/maximally evil.  Not from the context of the Satanists who wanted to erect a statue, whose beliefs are both atheistic and benignly humanistic. 

In this example you've chosen, you're completely wrong.  They don't want to harm anyone; they aren't evil.  Except if you circularly define blasphemy as evil, which is understandable if you're arguing from Christian theology but absurd if you are trying to make a point about civics.  Hitler is evil by the standards of basic human rights enshrined in our constitution.  Baphomet as viewed by the Detroit Satanic Temple is no more evil than a statue of Zeus sponsored by an art appreciation club.

You've made another pretty egregious error in this thread, too:

Quote
Can you imagine if someone suggested removing a Jewish monument on the grounds that they dislike the tenets of Judaism? There would be an outcry that would never stop.

1) the Ten Commandments ARE tenets of Judaism, and we've been around the block on that kind of monument already.  It didn't trigger the cataclysm of anti-anti-Semitism that you predicted. 

OK, fine, everybody conceived of those as Christian monuments.  Not because they weren't also representative of Judaism, but because Christians are such a bigger cohort in this country. 

But that still leaves:

2) "Jewish monuments" in public, that aren't also Christian, aren't much of a thing in this country.  Holocaust memorials don't represent Judaism, their purpose is to remind us of the immeasurable evil of the Nazi regime and keep us vigilant against similar evils.   

3) You're comparing symbols of a religious and ethnic identity - which happens to be a protected class in this country - with symbols of historical events that were brought about by the evils of racism and which symbols were largely erected for the purpose of promoting white supremacy, and further, mainly exist in places that continue to shelter and breed racism.   One of these things is not like the other. 

This difference is the same reason you can refuse to hire Nazis but you can't refuse to hire Jews. 

It's a terrible comparison. 

50
Pete, I didn't respond to your Facebook message because I have no desire to let anything that happens on this site intrude into any other venue.  Your message DID remind me to come check this thread which is why I responded to your posts shortly afterward. 

Calling that message an "olive branch" is not a fair characterization.  Feel free to post your message here in full if you want to dispute my disputing of that characterization. 

Quote
It's hard to read your writing in "good faith," when you do stuff like this:
(1) come out and without any examples or specifics, accuse me of destroying Ornery.
(2) sit silent for a few days, failing to respond to any material points by anyone.
(3) hardly an hour AFTER I send you an olive branch personal message letting you know that I'm banned from the forum and that you can now enjoy it without me, you pop back on here and make more personal attacks on me, knowing that I cannot respond.
(4) You completely fail to enter any other discussions during the 2 weeks I'm banned.

So does this list explain your behavior, considering that all of it happened after the behavior I was complaining about? 

You didn't destroy Ornery, and it was dumb and hyperbolic to say that you are the reason it sucks now.  But the way you ignore details in my posts, don't follow links, and don't seem to make an effort to understand me?  That does suck.  And it's been going on a long time, and hasn't improved. 

Whether you're banned or not, I have a right to respond to you here, however prompt or tardy that response is. 

Quote
I don't know what [factual errors] you're talking about, and you haven't given specifics in any of your personal attacks on me.

That's funny - because I did tell you what factual errors I'm talking about.  Page 1.   

Quote
You are engaging in classic abusive behavior.  Blame me for abusing me, and then claim that I'm enjoying it.

Um, no.  I'm not blaming you for my bad behavior, I'm blaming you for yours.  You accused me of "making stuff up" and "playing stupid" before I got mad.  Page 1.

And, at the same time, were demonstrating that you hadn't really paid attention to the content of my previous posts, by not acknowledging that the Orlando attack HAD been counted in the comparison you were criticizing for not including Orlando, and that stories that didn't include Orlando were published well before Orlando happened.  That was stuff I pointed out, and also stuff that was supported in links I provided, by the time you were accusing me of dishonesty. 

Quote
[scifi to Seriati]... That's pathetic.  ... It's called context.

You're quoting Seriati, here.  Do you see the pattern yet?

Quote
But it speaks poorly of your integrity when you not only blame me for your incivility, but accuse me of engineering your misbehavior and laughing demonically when you misbehave.

I wasn't blaming you for anything I said to Seriati.  Where did you get that? 

My comment was this:
Quote
If you're going to pat yourself on the back for getting me to respond with incivility, enjoy that.

Because you had just said:
Quote
....someone needs to take the higher ground here.

I wasn't attempting to present any justification for anything that happened after you made the post I was responding to.  I hadn't even responded to Seriati at the point you made the post I was responding to.  How could I claim you were patting yourself on the back for events that hadn't yet occurred when the patting occurred? 

Your interpretation is bizarre and unjustified.

Quote
The argument in question was a straw man.  You went into an Emperor's New Clothes frenzy, ridiculing me when I asked where Trump had suggested that refugees were going to massively increase the danger to all of us on the street.  In response to your ridicule, I asked you rather politely for a source, and you responded rather rudely that you didn't have to give me a source.

None of this is correct!  I claimed that Trump was fear mongering and trying to scare people and make them feel unsafe without his intervention.  You then required evidence that Trump claimed the average Joe was going to face direct threat in the street.  I told you that this was an arbitrary challenge, which is true (you were asking for something more specific than I had claimed existed). 

If you have read my posts, you'll already understand that I later provided specific examples of the fear mongering I was talking about.  If you had said "can you provide examples of fear mongering", I would not have called that an arbitrary challenge. 

But there was no "frenzy" about that. 

When I got mad is when you demonstrated that at the same time you were asking me to provide sources and back up my argument with specifics, you had not paid attention to specifics that I had already mentioned, and were accusing me of making things up.


Even in this most recent post where you are trying, again, to take me to task for incivility, you have quoted Seriati and chided me for his words.  You have bizarrely misconstrued my remark about patting yourself on the back, and said that your construction speaks poorly of my integrity. 


And you haven't shown that you understand your errors I pointed out on page 1, in my first post in this thread.  Those errors appeared to form a large part of the basis for your outrage expressed in the opening post. 


That sucks.  And asking me to repeat the specifics over and over doesn't wash.  I'm disgusted because of a long term pattern of misconstruing and misrepresenting my words, and making conclusory remarks if I don't dance to the tune you play when I object.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 7