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 - Seriati

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 77
General Comments / Re: General Barr's Hearing
« on: July 30, 2020, 04:47:51 PM »
So some of the many attacks and lies that were leveled, rather than seeking answers:

From Jerry Nadler – in his opening statement.  There are so many lies per minute it’s impossible to catch them all, yet here’s a massive and partial list from just that 10 minute slice of the five hour hearing:

Your tenure has been marked by a persistent war against the department’s professional core in an apparent attempt to secure favors for the president. Others have lost sight of the importance of civil rights laws, but now we see the full force of the federal government brought to bear against citizens demonstrating for the advancement of their own civil rights.

Every part of that statement was false.  Nothing attacking the “professional core” just exposing their manipulation in politics and conduct that should result in criminal charges.  Nadler endorsing corruption of the “professional core” and denouncing exposing it is blatant corruption and propaganda.  Not one statement from the DOJ or Barr supports any kind of abandonment of civil rights laws.  And the full force of government hasn’t be brought against any citizens, the limited force of arresting those violating federal law hasn’t even been brought against all those violating federal law, just those for whom they have an airtight case.

here is no precedent for the Department of Justice to actively seek out conflict with American citizens under such flimsy pretext or for such petty purposes.

Nor does Nadler have any evidence suggesting that the DOJ is seeking any conflict.  Congress obligated the federal government to protect federal property.  Congress created the laws that are violated by destruction of federal property.  Nadler and his party are openly supporting violent rioters and anarchists in their war against federal property.  Every single precedent in our history in respect of open insurrection and sedition is far more violent and oppressive than the exceedingly limited current federal response.

We are coming to grips with a civil rights struggle long swept under the rug, if not outright ignored, by our government.

That is quite true, yet not one word for the state and local governments that have been applying the police power in that manner?  It’s Democrat controlled cities and police departments that head every list of oppressive police departments.  Is Nadler serious about civil rights, or only serious about criticizing for political gains?

We are as a nation witnessing the federal government turn violently on its own people.

Flat lie.  We are witnessing one of the single most measured responses in history to anarchists destroying American property and lives.  The amount of deaths, injuries and sexual assaults is rising on the backend of everyone of these protests.  Police officers have been shot, murdered and assaulted with deadly weapons.

What we are really witnessing, is the Democrats in federal government openly supporting an insurrection and lying about the situation in a naked grab for power.

And although responsibility for the government’s failure to protect the health, safety and constitutional rights of the American people belongs squarely to President Trump, he could not have done this alone.

Really?  He did this how.  The laws are those passed by Congress, the actions have been measured by even the contours of what the laws allow.  Every part of the violation of constitional rights, health and safety in those communities can be laid at the feet of the Democratic local officials and their persistent inability to create just application of law or at the feet of the violent protestors, rioters and looters that have actually violated those rights.  Nadler seemingly believes the feds going there is attack of storm troopers but that its also President Trump’s fault for not stopping the riots.

He needed help and after he finished utterly humiliating his first attorney general, he found you.

This one’s petty, but Sessions humiliated himself.  He let dirty cops convince him to give them control over the only investigation of their  own dirty acts.

First, under your leadership, the department has endangered Americans and violated their constitutional rights by flooding federal law enforcement into the streets of American cities against the wishes of the state and local leaders of those cities to forcefully and unconstitutionally suppress dissent.

Open propaganda.  The lack of any enforcement of the laws in Portland and other leftist cities has endangered Americans – and in fact has lead to increased violent crimes, massive destruction of property and looting.  “Flooding” apparently means sending less that 50 people to defend a courthouse against crowds of hundreds or thousands of anarchists.  Not in any real world.  Just in the world of a compliant media with market tested messaging. 

Flooding is an explicit lie.  If Barr said it in his response he could be brought up on lying to Congress charges.

In any event, enforcing federal law – even if done by actually flooding the streets with agents – is not a violation of anyone’s Constitutional rights.  That a senior member of Congress would not know this is unbelievable (in fact don’t believe it, its just another lie).

“To forcefully and unconstitutionally suppress dissent” is a pernicious lie.  And you on the left are complicit in it if you don’t challenge it.  The only people in Portland whose dissent is being suppressed are those that dissent from the mob.  They can be murdered with impunity, assaulted with impunity, doxed, have their family and friends attacked.  Nadler knows all this.  He wants all this.  He’s a fascist and so is everyone that supports this.

Second, at your direction, department officials have downplayed the effects of systemic racism and abandoned the victims of police brutality, refused to hold abusive police departments accountable for their actions, and expressed open hostility to the Black Lives Matter movement.

None of this is spoken with a strong regard for the truth.  Systemic racism is a concept that could have a meaning, but as it’s used today is just a lie.  It’s a way to claim racism without being able to demonstrate any way in which that racism is effected.  Barr pointed that out later in his responses, and specifically asked to be directed to the racism they are ignoring. 

And I love the charge that they “refused to hold abusive police departments accountable,” charge.  All those departments directly controlled by the Democrats, in many cases for decades that are abusive, that the federal government is going to “hold accountable.”  By what, sending the federal stormtroopers  “against the wishes of the state and local leaders of those cities” to interfere?  Is there any world where Trump inserts federal troops into state and local policing situations that Nadler would support.  Of course not.  He’s talking about consent decrees (which are a violation of the Constitution as they’ve been used, but fat chance the  Roberts court does anything about them) and as we all know are only “acceptable” if a Democrat President enters into them.  No word from Nadler how he reconciles that all the crimes committed by the police are a matter of state law (again almost always controlled by member of his party).

Third, in coordination with the White House, the department has spread disinformation about voter fraud, failed to enforce voting rights laws, and attempted to change the census rules to flaunt the plain text of the Constitution, and even defied court orders on this subject, all in the apparent attempt to assist the president’s re-election.

By “disinformation” about voter fraud, he means accurate, legitimate and OBVIOUS information about the risk of fraud from universal mail in ballots (the same thing prior Congresses identified as the single largest fraud vector).  Nadler and his party are masters of spreading disinformation about voter fraud.  Voter fraud exists in every election, and the Democrat’s goal is to maximize its spread.  There’s no legitimate conversation though, this is an all or nothing party loyalty test.  Either you support an election process that facilitates fraud or you are “spreading disinformation.”

There’s no failure to enforce voting rights laws.  That’s just a flat lie.

The Constitutional question is interesting, I think the President is misinterpreting that provision, but it’s not clear what the remedy actually is.  I suspect, they will ignore his report and have the new President resubmit a “corrected” report (which also ignores the Constitution – bet you won’t hear Nadler repeat his newfound concern for the Constitution then).

None of those points really tie into the President’s reelection.

Fourth, at the president’s request, the department has amplified the president’s conspiracy theories and shielded him from responsibility by blatantly misrepresenting the Mueller report and failing to hold foreign actors accountable for their attacks on our elections, undermining both national security and
the department’s professional staff in the process.

Just a lie.  Barr’s statement about the Mueller report is STILL accurate.  Barr’s conclusion about it, that there was no obstruction was in fact the conclusion that was required under law, even under Mueller’s misstated version of the law. 

The revealed facts on this, now make it 100% clear that Mueller’s investigation was never legally justifiable.  It was based on KNOWN false information.  He rewrote his mandate months later to try and create a justification and still failed to include anything that wasn’t refuted by the facts.  And in fact, it's obvious that Mueller knew that Russian collusion was a myth early in his investigation, and deliberately delayed reporting that to influence the 2018 election.  That manipulation put the Democrats in charge of the House, and to my knowledge is the only successful manipulation of a recent election as a result of foreign disinformation.  Propagated, without consequence, by the deep state.

Mueller should be facing criminal charges.

What foreign actors were not held accountable?  Was that the UK national that influenced our election at the behest of Hillary’s campaign?  That’s true neither Steele nor anyone involved in that blatant foreign influence were held accountable (interesting that you above make a note of Barr’s answer on foreign influence being so clear cut, when this interference was the single most consequential foreign influence in our history).  Maybe he meant the Ukrainians who the Obama admin solicited to fabricate evidence on Manafort so that they could justify investigating him?  Or maybe they mean the foreign agents that they coordinated with to spy on Trump campaign staff overseas, or the foreign intelligence networks they accessed to get intel on the Trump campaign?

In that case, I agree, not one of the Democrats that heavily violated our laws on soliciting foreign influence has been brought to account for those crimes.

Fifth, again and again, you personally have interfered with ongoing criminal investigations to protect the president and his allies from the consequences of their actions. When career investigators and prosecutors resisted these brazen unprecedented actions, you replaced them with less qualified staff who appear to be singularly beholden to you.

Firstly, this is a lie, there is no ongoing criminal investigation that was interfered with.  Stone was post trial and conviction – a trial and conviction that Barr supported.  Barr was 100% right that the line prosecutors were acting vindictively and treating Stone differently and more harshly because he was Trump’s friend.  You don’t have to take my word for it, nothing at all stopped the judge in that case (who was no friend of Stone’s) from applying the higher sentence if she deemed it appropriate.  The fact that she didn’t is pretty clear evidence that the line prosecutors were out of line.

Anyone, who’s read the additional evidence in the Flynn matter and thinks that is a righteous prosecution at heart is not a believer in any of the principals America was founded on.  There is no conception of classical liberalism or civil rights underwhich what was done to him is okay.  The latest (just today) grant of an en banc hearing by the DC circuit just demonstrates how political our judges have become.  Go back and read the amicus brief at the trial court level, it’s straight up, grade A conspiracy theory garbage.  The evidence the DOJ presented far exceeds what it was obligated to provide, and is way more than adequate for a dismissal.  The hidden lie here, is that even if the judge were allowed to rule on Flynn’s guilt (which he’ll never get to as this fight is about whether he’s allowed to rule to deny the governments motion to dismiss – he’s not under the SC precedents – he’ll never get to declare Flynn guilty in a manner that sticks.  The SC has decisively state the DOJ can drop a prosecution post-conviction).

The only reason this is playing out, is to try and force Trump to pardon him.  Maybe someone can point to the law that makes that legitimate?  Show where a judge may refuse to dismiss charges to try and force a President to make what will be deemed a political act.

Any precedent here is going to be one off, cause I can tell you 100% confidence, that Biden will have no problem with and face no scrutiny for dismissing charges against any of the criminals that Durham ultimately seeks to prosecute.

The message these actions send is clear. In this Justice Department, the president’s enemies will be punished and his friends will be protected, no matter the cost, no matter the cost to liberty, no matter the cost to justice.

Nah, the “clear” message is that Nadler and the Dems have their thumbs on the scales of justice, which decisively tilt in their favor, and that they will fight, lie, propagandize and do everything on earth to prevent justice from being applied equally.

Finally, and perhaps most perniciously, the department has placed the president’s political needs over the public health by challenging stay-at-home orders in the states hit hardest by the pandemic.

Seriously?  Wasn’t Nadler just lecturing us on the federal storm troopers violating civil rights by seeking to suppress protests?  So, it’s a dangerous risk to demand that churches be treated equally as the Constitution requires to other gatherings, but it’s unconscionable (even assuming Nadler’s lies were true) to seek to stop mass gatherings of protestors.

Freedom of religion is in the same Amendment as freedom of speech.

In the hands of President Trump, a Department of Justice that adopts a dangerously expansive view of executive power and demonstrates a willingness to shield him from accountability represents a direct threat to the liberty and safety of the country.

That’s counterfactual.  President Obama openly adopted an expansive view of executive power, which has been grossly curtailed under President Trump – both by his choice and by the excessive lengths leftist judges will go to stop him. 

We want to give you a chance to respond to our questions to these and other matters and we hope and expect that you will do so in a clear and forthright manner.

That’s the most blatant lie of all.  They had no interest in hearing his responses.  If they were in the right, they would have wanted to get him on the record on everything.  However, they know they’re in the wrong and that it’s obvious and easy to see if one isn’t willfully blind and therefore he can’t be allowed to speak.

The transcripts really don't do the hearing justice.  The nastiness of the Dems is softened by reducing it to text.

General Comments / General Barr's Hearing
« on: July 28, 2020, 07:07:48 PM »
So I just watched the House Judiciary Committee's hearing where they had the opportunity to ask questions of the Attorney General on the record and I'm appalled.  I am note sure how the Democrats on the committee could have possibly wasted any more time than they did.  They pontificated for 5 minutes at a time, made knowing false statements, repeated propaganda and their most common response to any answer that Barr actually tried to provide was to immediately interrupt him and state "I am reclaiming my time."

What's the point of an oversight hearing where the person asked to be there is not allowed to respond to even direct questions?

In the five hour plus hearing, we got to hear multiple speaches on whether the Trump admin's response to Covid-19 has been good or bad - what is the DOJ supposed to do on that point?

Multiple speeches on whether mandatory voting by mail will cause fraud - you might think there was a question in there but you'd largely be wrong as any time Barr tried to answer what seemed to be a question, the Democrat asking it immediately declared it wasn't a question and "reclaimed their time."

Repeated insistence that Federal Troops are assaulting peaceful protesters, even though literally everyone is aware that this is not true.  Not one second of response admitting that trying to burn down a federal court house is not a peaceful protest.  Lots and lots and lots of straight up propaganda and lies on this point.

I've said it before, but the format of these hearings needs to be permanently changed.  Allowing Congress people to lie and put words in the witnesses mouth and refusing the witness a right to respond even when accused of crimes or slandered is absurd.  This is not remotely what the founder's had in mind and it serves no real purpose in our society.

it's beyond offensive to be lectured by children engaged in naked partisan behavior while lying and claiming that the otherside is the one responsible.

My favorite response to a question asked about whether Barr would commit not to x, was "I will follow the law," to which the Democratic Congressman responded with something like, well since you won't give a clear answer I'm moving on.

Or how about the demand that Barr give up the challenge to Obamacare, not because the Congresswoman made a case at law but because people are dying and she's sick with cancer and he's trying to kill her (paraphrase) and it's the "right" policy anyway.  Barr responded that he has 2 children that have been treated for Cancer and whatever he thinks of the policy (implying he may agree) his job is not to set the policy but to apply the law, but was interrupted because apparently admitting the actual legal standard that an AG should apply is not the answer that was called for.

Or  when Horowitz's conclusion was misstated (deliberately) by the Congressman, Barr responded that this was not Horowitz's conclusion, to which the Congressman told Barr he was a liar and doubled down on the false statement.

If you want to see why reasonable people should not give Democrats power, watch this hearing.  It has nothing in common with any legitimate purpose of Congress and was solely conducted to let Democrats read a list of Presidential campaign promises.

General Comments / Re: Roger Stone pardon
« on: July 20, 2020, 07:11:18 PM »
But yes, if you look at the history of pardons, they are littered with pardons of friends,  family and political allies.  Heck if you look at Clinton with Mark Rich, that pardon was arguably the result of bribery.  I mean what do you call it when a rich fugitive from justice gets pardoned after his wife makes large contributions to Hillary's Senate campaign and the Clinton library?  Can you even imagine how your head would explode if you could find something similar that Trump did?

Its interesting that you don't view what trump did with regards to Stone as similar?  I am reasonably confident if Clinton did the exact same thing with the same timing your head would explode.

If what you guys seem to want to believe is true, then the "more similar" pardon would be that of Bill Clinton for Susan McDougal who spent 18 months in federal prison including 8 in solitary rather than testify against the Clintons in connection with the Whitewater mess.  Of course that was a pardon after the fact.  She'd already served the time.  But it's difficult to understand why she'd serve 18 months rather than testify if she didn't know something, or why if she was innocent Bill let her, other than pure politics. 

Given that people seem to forget anything about the past everytime they start 'splaining about Trump, you should take a look at her history.  It's inescapable that you'll reach one or both of two conclusions:  (i) Federal prosecutors used lies they had suborned as testimony and tried to force a witness to lie more, and/or (ii) she had relevant testimony of criminal activity by Bill Clinton.

Either conclusion is relevant here.  If it's the latter, then you have your direct example of a criminal/political pardon directly related to a President's crimes.  If its the former, you have the literal fact pattern that I've been describing of overzealous prosecutors abusing the plea process and not caring at all about whether the testimony is a lie.

Mueller's team was doing the former  They have a history of it and that's what they were doing.  Whether there was also an underlying criminal activity to hide can't be certain, but the evidence of it is practically nil and you'd be hard pressed to even explain what criminal activity on this point Stone could be aware of - especially since they have his emails and records and VERY SIGNIFICANTLY never charged him with anything related to a substantive crime.

The problem of these types of pardons is that they are wrong no matter which party.

No.  The problem is partisan prosecutions that are not merited by the facts.  Pardons issued where a President thinks a prosecution is unjust is a perfectly reasonable compromise.  The "real" alternative - that you guys seem to ignore - is that the President would reassert his Constitutional authority to directly intervene inside the DOJ and the FBI in their investigations and charging decisions to ensure that these pardons are not necessary.    Pardons are open and we can all judge there merits.

Prosecutions?  Not so much.  They are arbitrary and in the eyes of the beholder.  Or has anyone - to date - explained why they needed a federal task force, frogman and swat team to arrest Stone in the first place?  Elderly, non-violent, first time offender. 

Its not acceptable.  Most presidents wait till they are about to leave office to pull off this crap That Trump new he would get away with doing such thing now should be troubling for everyone.


He commuted the sentence.  It's not a pardon.  It lets Stone keep fighting his case.

Meanwhile, did I hear you speak out when during the trial the Judge barred Stone from making his defense public with a gag order?  How could a political persecution be brought to light in that circumstance?  The deck was massively stacked, with the prosecutors bringing trial in CD in front of an overwhelmingly Democrat jury, with a foreman that had already commented on the case - and Stone - as deserving of jail before being put on the jury. 

The Mueller investigation repeatedly and illegally leaked fake stories to the media that made those they were persecuting look bad.  The same media ran those stories uncritically and even went so far as to cover up their sources, even after the stories were shown to be untrue.  Yet Stone not aloud to respond.

If you believe civil rights - at all - what Mueller did should have you terrified.  Yet, the problem is President Trump?  Absurd.

General Comments / Re: Roger Stone pardon
« on: July 20, 2020, 01:15:31 PM »
So if I understand this correctly, Roger Stone was convicted by a jury of perjury and witness tampering,

Not exactly, he was charged with one count of obstruction of an official proceeding, five counts of false statements, and one count of witness tampering.  I've now read the declassified transcript of his testimony to Congress.  It wasn't searchable or I'd pull quotes from it.  One of the principal "falsities" is that he repeatedly said he did not have documents responsive to the publicly announced mandate of the House Committee.  I think he was correct about that based on the public announcement, which was flawed, and didn't actually get to the documents it wanted that he did have.

It's also interesting that he was charged with misrepresenting his sources - he over emphasized Credico and under emphasized Corsi.  However, if you look at the actual testimony, you see that he named Corsi and didn't name Credico (jounalistic privilege), and it looks like on Credico actually had contact with Wikileaks.  The primary dispute on that point is that Stone claimed he was in contact with Wikileaks prior to talking to Credico and therefore Credico wanted Stone to be clear he had a source before Credico.  I can see how a prosecutor with the records in hand would find fault with the answers, but I'm less sure that a reasonable person considering someone's actual memory during a Congressional hearing would conclude the same.

The most "legitimate" part of the charge is that Stone really did seem to underplay the amount of times he tried to get information through his contacts.  I think the Corsi vs. Credico point is mostly nonsense, given that Corsi had no direct contact (but implied to Stone he did) and Credico did have direct contact (an interview, but implied more as well), it's pretty easy to see how Stone's public comments didn't represent actual reality and how his memory would have altered over time.  It's hard to see exactly how - after disclosing Corsi's role - Stone would have benefited by "lying" about what Credico told him.  Whats the motive there?

I doubt if you looked at his testimony in the context of looking at a dozen people that have testified to Congress and you had full access to every written communication they ever made that this is the one you'd find as best suited to prosecution.  But you should read it for yourself. 

I don't think this is a conviction you get with a jury outside of DC, lucky for the Dems the Feds get to bring these cases in place where juries are 90%+ Democrats and in this case apparently even openly hostile to Trump.

...involving actions taken during and in support of Donald Trump's election...

I see.  Does that mean it's okay for Trump to prosecute Biden's campaign staff and to get the records of everything they've ever said?  Let's say, they decide to investigate Seattle's CHOP for insurrection (which it was) and to probe the Biden campaign's involvement, for which an easy case on national security could be made.  Can they then secretly seize all their records, demand interviews and prosecute any lack of complete candor about every single person they ever communicated with on the topic? 

Or do you think Biden's team would be required to disclose all internal communications on that topic?

What about the dirty trick's Biden's engaged in?  Can Trump legitimately open counter terrorism investigations on every single Biden staffer that has had any conversation with any non-US person where they've expressed an offer to help out?

Assuming Trump does all this and Biden wins the election, are you taking the position that Biden can not dismiss any of those prosecutions, commute sentences or pardon persons related thereto, all because it was to "help him get elected"?  Or is it just that Biden, but not President Trump, gets to determine that an unfair politically motivated prosecution should be terminated?

- and Stone recently claimed that he could have "easily" turned on Trump to avoid a trial - suggesting that he actually had information....

Or that the DOJ was willing to give Stone a deal if he lied about communications with Trump.  Apparently those were by phone call, so there's no one but Stone or Trump to say what was said (unless they actually wire tapped those calls - but then they'd have to admit to that crime to use them).  I brought this up when they prosecuted Manafort by flipping Gates.  If Gates committed the crimes but the prosecution wants Manafort, flipping Gates allows them to "explain away" his involvement by saying that every written record on which Manafort does not appear but Gates does was at Manafort's direction.  If Gates is lying then Manafort is wrongly convicted (not by the way saying that this happened, only pointing out how it works).  Is the prosecutor really following the evidence if the evidence points to Gates?  Or are they suborning perjury with the deal they give Gates?  How would you ever know?

I think you're kidding yourself if you believe that the DOJ wouldn't have willingly used a lie by Stone about what was said to further their efforts.  As long as it couldn't be proven to be a lie, they didn't care.  They knew the targets they wanted.

...that at the very least a) he thought was legally damaging to the president, and b) was serious enough that it would have been of sufficient value to prosecutors to reduce his own charges, enough for him to avoid trial.

Given how Meuller's farce panned out anything connecting anything, no matter how minor, to President Trump would have been invaluable.  It didn't have to be damaging or even material it just had to be there. 

I mean my goodness, the Dems impeached President Trump where Trump's only communications on the topic were that there was no quid pro quo and that he didn't want anything.  If the Mueller probe had been able to find even one person or document that linked anything to President Trump they would have used it.

So the president used his constitutional authority to reward somebody who explicitly claimed to have shielded the president from legal jeopardy.

This statement doesn't match reality.  It's a lie to claim that your conclusion was an "explicit claim" when Stone would tell you directly, if you asked, that the DOJ was asking him to lie in exchange for the deal.  There was nothing illegal about candidate Trump talking to WikiLeaks, he could have done that directly, so what was the "legal jeopardy" he faced.  No one is in legal jeopardy for talking to Wiki leaks after the fact about what they had, the legal jeopardy is with anyone who coordinated with them to steal the information (Stone was unarguably not involved in that - and the Mueller team knew that given they had his communications on the matter - and accordingly he couldn't link anyone to the only part of this that was a crime).

It's settled law that publication of stolen information is a journalistic privilege, provided the journalists didn't steal it or encourage the theft.

Is this a purpose for which the presidential pardon power is usually exercised?  Is it outside the norm?

Well you've misstated the purpose in this case.  The purpose here was to undo what the President obviously feels is an unjust persecution of his friend, primarily for the crime of being his friend.  The fact is that's reasonable interpretation of what occurred, and if you're the President you would know for a fact whether this prosecution was unjust or not.  President Trump is not guilty of anything at law, years of investigation have failed to even make a plausible case.  If it turns out that this is also reality - ie that he's actually not guilty, and not just super human in evading proof of guilt (which would be really amazing for a narcist) - then he's actually right about what's going on.  Can you accept the possibility that he's right?

But yes, if you look at the history of pardons, they are littered with pardons of friends,  family and political allies.  Heck if you look at Clinton with Mark Rich, that pardon was arguably the result of bribery.  I mean what do you call it when a rich fugitive from justice gets pardoned after his wife makes large contributions to Hillary's Senate campaign and the Clinton library?  Can you even imagine how your head would explode if you could find something similar that Trump did?

General Comments / Re: Voting mechanisms
« on: July 15, 2020, 01:09:29 PM »
If we trust that online banking is relatively safe, why are we so concerned about online voting? 
 If we trust mailing checks to each other, why are we so concerned about mail in ballots?

Do you know how many bank accounts have been hacked?  It's not a small number.  When checks were regularly used (and accepted) they were bounced all over the place.  Used to be many stores had entire walls of pictures of people that had bounced checks.  Anyone with an found check book could walk out of a store with merchandise.

The truth is that mail-in ballots will contribute heavily to fraud.  Every politician knows that, their opposition or support has NOTHING to do with any principal other than whether they think that fraud will help or hurt them.

Shouldn't there be an audit mechanism possible, just as there is counting paper ballots?   And don't give me that crap about needing to ID someone.

What would that be?  Do you have a "neutral" person that is entitled to call you up, open your ballot and confirm that everyone you voted for is correctly indicated before its counted?  Like that won't be abused.

You already oppose voter ID, what do you audit against if you don't have voter ID?  In fact, the argument you are making is beyond absurd, to believe that you can simultaneously oppose IDs AND believe you're verifying the voter.  If you can do the latter, you'd already be able to do the former.

Most people don't even look much like the person in the picture from three and a half years ago. What average poll worker is going to look at the ID and say "that doesn't look like you". And if you think that there is a huge cabal working to stuff ballot boxes in an election that is spending a half billion dollars, but they can't come up with a fake ID for people, you are delusional.

Presenting a fake ID is a much bigger risk - and people get caught all the time - than falsifying a stack of mailed and not requested votes.

Go on record.  What is your acceptable level of fraudulent votes that will be counted.  There is zero chance that it won't happen under this plan, so that means you accept some "reasonable" level of it, what is that level?

General Comments / Re: Home schooled, school at home
« on: July 15, 2020, 12:12:08 PM »
Don't look at me, we've been out of our house 3 times in 4 months and I missed my father's out of state funeral.  But many in the community have refused to accept any limits.  They were having parties before we even got to stage 1, so when things were "relaxed" for stage 1 they could only understand it to mean that the very minimal precautions they were taking were no longer necessary.

General Comments / Re: Home schooled, school at home
« on: July 15, 2020, 10:34:49 AM »
Yes, reopening is a terrible idea. My question presumes that they do not open, and perhaps they never open. What are the implications? Like maybe writing with a pen stops being normal because everything is done via tablet or computer.

BTW, what is up with that website, it looks like 1996.

I don't see how anyone can claim that reopening is a terrible idea.  I live in a blue state in a region that was hard hit, and if you head over and take a look at any beach its packed, no social distancing, no masks.  Kids in massive herds playing with anyone and everyone. 

Restaurants are full constantly.   Granted the no mask wearing patrons are set at tables that have maybe 4 feet between them after they sit down but probably measure at 6 feet table top to table top on one axix, on the other axix couldn't be more than 4 feet.  Every one of neighbors has had multiple parties with dozens (at each party) of non-mask wearing friends (and not even the same groups of people each time) and have been having those parties for months.  They love their "social distancing picture" so they'll yell for everyone to spread out so they can take the picture showing themselves spaced out.

Look at social media, at least here, its filled with people - not wearing masks - getting together and hugging and hanging all over each other.  We even had a group of mom's that posted their night out at restaurant with multiple hugs with their friend from out of town - who was here for five days and was supposed to be subject to a mandatory 14 day quarantine - hmmmm.

What exactly are we gaining by closing schools with that backdrop?

Meanwhile, special needs students are getting crushed, minority students may be irrevocably damaged.

Why is it that everyone else can reopen their workplace successfully, and some like restaurants for the most part never even closed?  Teachers should be in mandatory masks.  Students should be as well (the word here is that parents are lining up friendly doctors to excuse their child from the facemask requirements for spurious medical reasons).  Temperatures should be taken.  Windows should be open, kids should be outside as much as possible.

Obviously I'm skipping a lot, for example transmission from kid to kid and kid to adult seems much lower than adult to adult and adult to kid.  Some teachers are high risk and should receive accommodations.

But what I'm not missing is that distance learning was a failure, even where it was most successful the students are way off pace.  Something like half of the school systems didn't even manage to take attendance and virtually none were able to maintain their grading.

General Comments / Re: Home schooled, school at home
« on: July 15, 2020, 10:11:05 AM »
Now that brick and mortar schools have been closed for some time, will it have any permanent effect?

Estimates I saw are that if distance learning continues for any substantial length of time this year the average student will end up a full year behind expectations.  Retention of knowledge is well below the expected level and that compounds very rapidly.  The gap between students with more resources and stronger family units and poorer students without that structure will become the largest in recent history as the former will receive more support to maintain grade level.  Minority students are expected to be especially hard hit and are already far off even the poor marks set by others.

That's just academics, the social learning losses may be insurmountable.  While there are some indications that students with intact and supportive families are receiving benefits from having their parents home more, for broken families, families still working outside the home and abusive families those benefits don't exist and they're losing out on peer to peer and teacher to student interaction.

Will students of this era be less prepared for later learning? Will they experience a dip in standardized tests compared to other cohorts?

Yes to the latter, who can say to the former.  Despite the beliefs of our educators much of what they teach isn't really necessary to have a good job and can be made up in other ways.
Might we see a cost-saving transformation to distance learning?

No.  In no circumstances will you see cost-savings on the longer term, even shorter term the teacher's unions are resisting any cost reductions.

General Comments / Re: Hamilton
« on: July 10, 2020, 04:13:18 PM »
If you want to learn about anyone, any place, or anything read an actual book. Maybe I'll start a new thread with book recommendations. Too many people think they learned about JFK, MLK, and many others from watching a movie. Let alone a musical. Wicked is also not about the Salem witch trials.

Yeah, don't read Wicked, not if you like the musical.  And whatever you do, don't hand that book to a child just because the musical is fun for kids.

General Comments / Re: Hamilton
« on: July 10, 2020, 01:04:10 PM »
I couldn't tell you the names of any of the songs after a single viewing, honestly, the musically fades away when I'm watching a story.

People online seem to rave about Soo's performance and I don't get that.  I didn't see anything that she added that I wouldn't expect from any one of hundreds of actresses on Broadway.  She was professional and overall fine but not a standout.  Similarly, I didn't see much about Jackson's performance as Washington that stood out.  Maybe they both look better on a rewatch.

This was a musical about a man's complicated life, not a history lesson, any more than Le Mis was a history lesson about France at that time.

No, this was advocacy as art (which is okay).  The voice was Lin's not Hamilton's.  Lin didn't write this to tell Hamilton's story, he wrote it to use Hamilton's story to tell Lin's story.    This wouldn't have been a hit if it was a musical about a man's complicated life.

General Comments / Re: Hamilton
« on: July 10, 2020, 12:36:44 PM »
Well now I have msquared.  General consensus was that it didn't live up to the hype (but honestly how could it).  The more musical half of the family couldn't get into it, they didn't like that the songs blended into each other without pause or spoken interludes  They really didn't like Lin-Manuel's performance (I tend to agree on that, he was one of the weakest performers, which is tough when you're the lead - I didn't like Leslie Odom as Aaron Burr either.  Daveed Diggs on the other hand was a blast, loved him when he was playing the Marquis de Lafayette, but when he came back out as Jefferson - wow!).  They would have preferred seeing Wicked yet again (my 10 year  could sing half the songs after seeing the performance once).  King George is obviously an unfairly fun role, prone to excessive camp, obviously enjoyable but can't comment on whether the actor actually added anything to that wasn't already there in the role. 

The more analytical side of the family enjoyed it more, but still diidn't think it matched the hype.  In part the younger ones said they'd never learned any US history in school (despite having had US history), so it was a new story for them.

I found some of the story a bit misleading, definitely an effort to recast history to support a certain political view.  Specifically trying to recast our history with the "good guys" as strictly seeking to expand federal, unilateral power.  It's oddly trying to blend an anti-statist (King George) and pro-statist (Jefferson) message, which is actually quite hard to explain sensibly.  So Lin-Manuel didn't even try to explain the inconsistency he just made King George and Jefferson into obvious camp and clowns.  That's a little unforgiveable to me.  If you're taking on challenging material skipping the main challenge is a weakness.     

He also rather oddly tries to blend protest "against the autocratic government" culture into the story on the same "team" as supporting a new powerful central government.  Is this message really that autocratic institutions are good, provided that they are controllled by Hamilton/Washington, but are bad if they are controlled by King George?  He mocks Jefferson's position that decentralized government would be better. 

It's also really bizarre to write your revolution like it's a chaotic anti-fa moment (this came out through the choice of lyrics not how the story developed)  when you're going to write the ending to be pro-statist.    It's beyond obvious, but recasting the revolution by using the actors to make it about race was actually quite inspired.  While this performance is probably more useful in inspiring elements of chaos that seek to knock down the country, it can also be used by those seeking to unify and bring us together by showing what we all have in common in the  fight against injustice.

End of day, whether is autocratic King George or fascist cancel culture, the message of Hamilton for freedom plays out the same way.  Good people need to speak up and remind others of why their rights are important and freedom should be fought for and once won shouldn't be let slip away.

General Comments / Re: Hamilton
« on: July 09, 2020, 03:56:58 PM »
It's funny the way you guys are talking about Hamilton, considering there's a cancel culture movement to have it removed from Disney.  All or nothing on everything.
It's funny that you think that everybody who doesn't agree with you disagrees with you about everything.

Interesting.  I didn't mean to imply that I was talking about you or any of the posters here in that way.  I was talking about those pushing the cancel Hamilton meme, they're all or nothing on everything.  Either it's perfect and agrees with them completely, or it's completely flawed and must be cancelled.  I just thought it was interesting that the way you were talking about it seemed unaware that there was in fact an active cancel culture (from the left) trying to force it back off Disney because it fails to criticize Hamilton's ownership of slaves.

There is no forgiveness in cancel culture (well unless say you're the governor of Virginia and a Democrat).

I certainly don't think that anybody disagrees with me about everything.  In fact, I suspect that most people agree with me about a great deal of things.  We have much more in common than the media wants you to believe.

The idea of cancelling people is very dangerous.

I agree, thus my posts to that point, that destroying someone's ability to work and make a living over a political disagreement is vile.

Sure, maybe it feels good when you see that deserving person punished publicly, and their life is ruined because maybe they had a bad day (or maybe they really are a racist/stupid/evil person).

If that makes you feel good, there's something wrong with you.  Bringing a person to justice, requires justice.  We have courts and due process for a reason.  This current trend of destroying people for lack of sufficient political orthodoxy really is anti-American.  It's against everything this country was founded on.

We just had a local crime that involved a hit and run death with a white driver and a minority victim.  The police found, arrested and charged the driver within 4 days and people are mad that they haven't charged the driver with murder, but rather with the legal charges that actually apply.  People are planning to protest to try and force a charge that doesn't apply, and would go bananas if the jury or the court didn't convict on a charge that doesn't apply. 

There's something very wrong with that.  I mean that's literally mob justice, it's literally the same level of "justice" that applied in lynchings, and because it's going the "correct" woke direction its somehow okay?

But the net effect is a chill on the ability to disagree publicly.  Disagreement is the lubricant of democratic society.  Insomuch as this unfettered urge to cancel those who are not sufficiently in agreement with your group leads to a fear to debate publicly, it's a really bad thing.

Is it though, do you really believe it or are you just saying a platitude?  Your side is "winning" the repression war, are you not currently enjoying those benefits?   How committed are you - really - to overturning the apple cart of pressure and defending the right to have different ideas?

As an aside, "criticism" is not "cancelling".  How those ideas became synonymous in some people's minds is weird - and backwards.

There is a cancel meme for Hamilton.  There is also legitimate criticism of Hamilton.


Have you seen the play or the movie?

Not yet, we could never get the tickets at a time and price point that we could make work.  We're definitely planning to watch it together as a family and everyone's really excited about it.

You'd think it would be easy to find time in a quarantine, but I've been working more hours (even after eliminating a 4 hour round trip daily commute) in the last 6 months than any other period in my career.

General Comments / Re: Hamilton
« on: July 08, 2020, 04:00:39 PM »
It's funny the way you guys are talking about Hamilton, considering there's a cancel culture movement to have it removed from Disney.  All or nothing on everything.

I shortened your name from Kasandra to Kas (first time ever), and you drop the D from DonaldD while complaining about it?

I agree I can make an argument.  I think you can't.  You're not changing minds with the endless dodging.

Kas, rather I'm taking the opportunity to demonstrate that you and DonaldD are seemingly not capable of making the arguments you advocate.  Come on, surely it can't be that hard to demonstrate that you thought before you posted?

Here's a challenge - prove yourself not to be blindly partisan and show us a bunch of examples where Republicans were unwilling to make compromises.

Lol, answer a challenge with a challenge?  Admitting you can't answer the call?

No, I get it - you cannot distinguish between racism and policies meant to address the effects of racism, like affirmative action policies.  In fact, my guess is that you feel that affirmative action policies are by definition, not just in practice, racism.

Why don't you try to define the operation of an affirmative action policy that doesn't mention race.  That's literally the reasoning we just saw in the Supreme Court's decision on discrimination based on sex covering discrimination based on sexual preference and transgender status.

In fact, pre-schoolers are taught that two wrongs don't make a right, it takes very sophisticated thinking to understand how punishing people who are not directly responsible for something makes it better. 

But the fact is, we allowed affirmative action over the years to correct racism.  The arguments for it are there and known, make the case that we should allow more affirmative action, why and how it's implemented and what specific issues you see it as necessary to correct.  I doubt you even can.  You keep it vague and imply that disagreement is just unelightened racism.  I can distinguish between the two concepts, but I'm willing bet you actual describe racism when you try to explain affirmative action and why we need it.

So you can you show where the left is willing to make compromises and the right is turning them down?  Maybe how we urgently need police reform but the Dems filibustered the Senate bill so that only their own bill (in the House) would be up for discussion?

I know you mean well Fen, but some of the things you write make me shudder.

I don't recommend "rising above it."  You should reject it.  AI is perfectly capable of making an argument based on principal, but the current world is not requiring him to do so.  You should reject definitional games, here especially, but also in life, which is much harder, and make him explain his preferred policies and address the concerns.

Well, the thing of it is that some things in life do need updating, and many terms previously were insufficiently specific or relevant.

Needing to "update" is not the same thing as recasting a clear meaning as something different.  Social scientists used to try to create new words that explained their point, but the points were often so ridiculous that people rejected the words and the ideas.  We get a "backlash" against "politically correct," for example.  They gave up on that idea.

Instead they grabbed the idea of re-envisioning words that are incredibly loaded as describing everyday run of the mill concepts and pushing their ideas through that model.  This also coincides with their goal of moving language to match the laws already written.  They can't change the law - cause they can't win the political fight that it would take, but if they change the language they automatically change the law based on that language.  It's been an overt goal for a while.

Justice is blind.  The fact that we've failed to achieve perfect justice is a result of too much consideration of things like race, not too little consideration of things like race.  It will never result in an increase of justice to increase the amount of race we use in determining outcomes for the same conduct.

To me there is an inevitable conflict between being stuck in your ways and between change just for the sake of change.

That's a fiction.  The "conflict" is not with change for the sake of change.  It's with targeted change for very specific purposes.  The purpose of making impossible to have opposing views - if any position opposed to the one true position is "racist" (no matter what it is) and racism is evil, by definition anyone opposing the enlightened is in fact an evil racist that can be discounted.

The purpose of eliminating the ability to think through an argument.
The purpose of encoding political positions into the default moral positions.

The purpose of changing specific concepts in specific ways with highly predictable legal consequences.

The purpose of encoding political positions into law without ever getting a majority agreement.

It's fundamentally anti-democratic to seek not to persuade people but to eliminate their ability to even raise a contrary voice.

You do need to allow for updates, and for rethinking concepts, but of course the pathological version of this is pushing for changes that are either partisan or else self-serving. But blocking all change just on principle throws the baby with the bathwater.

Except none of that requires the methods they are using.  When methods don't match stated benefits it means the true goals are not what they say.

This is the fact, already a reality in Canada, that makes the "I don't use the far-left definition" a sticking your head in the ground kind of answer. It doesn't ever stop at being just a theoretical disagreement if you let things go too far, and in the U.S., which is uniquely obsessed with defeating those who disagree, a pathological direction is virtually guaranteed. That fact alone is not the fault of the left, but of those who perpetuate and encourage a system of division.

Those who do this are the left.  It's their only political operation.  They have reasoned arguments, they have empassioned ones.

Find where they actually listen to the other side and make compromises (you can't).

Step one, unless you think they are indeed racists who are trying to make sure that racism goes unchecked.  You can't have it both ways by accusing Democrats of wanting too many protections for disadvantaged segments of the population and wanting to get rid of protections.
I'm pretty sure none of your interlocutors actually believe that removing this clause is racist, but they do believe that, because of the specific way they misunderstand "leftist" definitions of racism, simply removing that clause must be racist on the part of Democrats because of what they think Democrats believe.

It's flat out racist.  He's literally advocating that a provision that bars the government from discriminating on racist be removed so that it will be easier to discriminate based on race.

Just because he believes that he's serving a good interest doesn't make it okay.

Again, for the talk about privilege and needing to listen, as soon as you hear something that you find uncomfortable the listening ends and you immediately try to recast it as fake or somehow disingenuous.  The idea that discriminating based on race is good and not racist act is a lie.  It's a twisting of linguistics worthy of being included in 1984.

It depends who you're talking to. I think some of the people here are confused about the logic of why certain things are called racist in groups like BLM. They may not be confused about the term as they grew up with it, but actually I don't believe that either. The groupthink coming from even small groups cannot help but permeate into the general consciousness and create a doublethink (i.e. contradictory things accepted at the same time), even if one doesn't notice it's happened. This is just a reality and is in a sense inevitable as soon as language games or updates are happening. You literally cannot avoid the confusion, so 'rising above it' is not exactly an option unless you're a hermit.

I don't recommend "rising above it."  You should reject it.  AI is perfectly capable of making an argument based on principal, but the current world is not requiring him to do so.  You should reject definitional games, here especially, but also in life, which is much harder, and make him explain his preferred policies and address the concerns.

Make AI explain how permitting the government to discriminate on the basis of race - a characteristic that the Supreme Court has already said requires strict scrutiny to apply because it is virtually never a valid basis for government power to be applied - will help reduce racism in our government.  It won't.  It will increase it.

Regarding whether the 'game is already over', I believe the game is already over in the sense that you can't 'stop' people messing with thinking like this. You can oppose, or just roll with it, but there is no 'conclusion' to the upending of meanings of things, of finality to a group's mutual agreement when some parts of the group are seeking to perpetually undermine other parts of it.

The "game" is over, because we've had 3 generations of education controlled by ever more radical leftist ideology.  As of now, virtually all means of communication are controlled by the radical left.  They have a massive control over the media, they control virtually all government bureaucracies,  they control enough of the courts, all of big tech and an increasingly significant number of the country's prosecutors.  They literally control the power to criminalize political thoughts and actions with which they disagree.

Looting and riots become "peaceful protests," homeowners defending themselves from violent mobs become "criminal harrassers oppressing free speech rights," people engaged in open insurrection that leads to multiple gun short deaths with open government facilitation are "peaceful protestors with important issues that aren't responsible for a few bad apples (who are probably secret racist agitators)."  Someone posts about it on Twitter?  Nope, banned or worse their posts are not pushed or pulled to those that have asked to receive them without any notice.

I didn't realize when the left said we've moved into a post truth world with the election of Trump, that they were not talking about Trump but rather themselves.  They lie with impunity, they repeatedly lie in the same ways over and over and over and not only never get called to account they have an army of useful idiots that rebroadcast and internalize their lies.  Meanwhile they wield the power to totally destroy people for just voicing disagreement, in violation of every principal upon which this country was founded.  They believe they have the right to oppress speach, religion, gun ownership, freedom of travel, freedom of association, the right to privacy (other than for abortions), all because they disagree with the person who is asserting those rights.

It's too late.  There are not enough people left who can think to correct this mess, and far too many that are actively pushing it.

- is not some accepted thing; or if it was then it isn't any more. Some people define injustice as unequal opportunity, others as unequal outcome. These are mutually exclusive definitions, and it cannot be assumed that there is a standard understood meaning to these terms. Likewise, even your definition of consequentialism cannot be understood to be clear, because even the notion of getting desired results gets muddied if the results desired are based not on empirical data but on deontological notions.

Just to be clear.  There's no definitional confusion.  Both sides know exactly what the words were intended to mean.  The left just plays a game of redefinition to allow them to argue for new meaning to the written word.

If you accept that there is confusion the game is already over.

The two positions cannot be easily reconciled, to say the least.

Are you saying that it is racist to repeal an ineffectual law that was intended to thwart racist practices?

It is racist to repeal a law that prohibits discrimination based on race.  So advocating for that repeal is inherently racist.

As to your false premises.  This constitutional amendment was effective, or you would not need to repeal it.  It did thwart overtly racist practices, and since you want to implement racist practices you need to repeal it.

Are you saying that you can't argue a proposition in good faith but can only redefine it to pretend you are a good guy when you're really advocating straight up racist action by a government?

General Comments / Re: SCOTUS protects LGBTQ workers
« on: June 17, 2020, 02:10:07 PM »
I may have read you incorrectly in that passage.  It appeared on first read that you were arguing that your examples were examples of textualism, when in fact I think you meant them of examples of what is not-textualism.  If that's the case I apologize.

General Comments / Re: SCOTUS protects LGBTQ workers
« on: June 17, 2020, 01:52:52 PM »
I'm trying to read up on all these terms, and I still don't get how you argue that's "textualism" instead of it's opposed theory "originalism".

Textualism and originalism are not opposed theories.  The latter is a theory of Constitutional interpretation that effectively says the meaning of the Constitution does not change in broad sweeping ways to adapt to the current views of society, rather it means what it meant when the founders drafted.  It's not quite the literalist school that Kasandra asserts, but it's closer than many find comfortable.  It's rooted in the fundamental thought that changes to the Constitution have to occur through Amendments not judicial whimsy.  Generally speaking, it also defers a lot of authority to the States and their governments to fill in the gaps (and historically they have).

Textualism is a school of statutory interpretation and fundamentally it's rooted in the idea that the words Congress uses are the definitive expression of their intent on the manner.  Literally it originated in response to opinions that primarily turned on legislative history, such as transcripts from a single session of a House committee, or even quotes from the sponsor of a bill as to what it meant.  It rejected those kinds of inputs as legitimate sources for the opinions of the 535 members of Congress and the President.  That led to basic rules about how to interpret the meaning of the words used.  They reject strict constructionalism or plain meaning both of which avoid the principal that the words should be interpreted based on their common meaning at the time.

A common example, was a statute that regulated something like motor vehicles - which later could have included things like airplanes.  Textualists interpreted it to mean only regulate ground transport as the term motor vehicles would have been understood at the time it was passed (however, unlike Kasandra implies, it would regulate any ground vehicle, including a hovercraft that couldn't have been conceived of at the time).  Both strict construction and plain meaning would likely have reach a contrary result.  It also meant that textualists rejected the idea that water could be regulated pursuant to a statute that gave the power to regulate chemicals, notwithstanding that water is literally a chemical it's not the common meaning and understanding of how that term was used in context.

Here's the definitions I google:
Textualism is a formalist theory in which the interpretation of the law is primarily based on the ordinary meaning of the legal text, where no consideration is given to non-textual sources, such as: intention of the law when passed, the problem it was intended to remedy, or significant questions regarding the justice or rectitude of the law

It helps though if you don't stop with a summation of a philosophy without describing other key concepts: 

"We ask, not what this man meant, but what those words would mean in the mouth of a normal speaker of English, using them in the circumstances in which they were used ... We do not inquire what the legislature meant; we ask only what the statutes mean."

That's the general root of why they look to the time period in question.  Again, at it's very core textualism rejects the idea that judges have a right to change the meaning of a statute by redefining or reassessing the words used against a more modern understanding of what they could have meant or have come to mean.

In the context of United States law, originalism is a concept regarding the interpretation of the Constitution that asserts that all statements in the constitution must be interpreted based on the original understanding of the authors or the people at the time it was ratified.

You could argue that Originalism is a specific use case of textualism.  The Constitution was passed one time, by one group, the words they used therefore, are properly interpreted by what they meant at the time.  But I think you can find distinctions where the two philosophies would lead to dissimilar results. 

Any time you guys talk about what the legislators originally meant, or even care at all about the date that the law was passed -- that's originalism as far as I can google up. If you don't care about when the law was passed, only about the text of the law as it currently stands -- that's textualism, again as far as I can google up.

I hope its clearer now.  But the simplest distinction to understand is that originalism is a CONSTITUTIONAL interpretation philosophy and textualism is a STATUTORY interpretation.

Textualism is absolutely defined by an adherence to what the common meaning of the words used in the statute at the time it was passed.  And they expressly reject the idea of defining each word independently and putting it together (which is what Gorsuch did) to get a desired result.  Look at the examples in the Wiki.  "Foreign object" in your eye, does not cause people to believe that the splinter in your eye was from a foreign country, even though you could construct that meaning by using the common definitions of each word and putting them together.

You people sayin that textualism is about the original intent of the legislators or the meaning of the law as originally understood -- then I have to ask, what the heck would "originalism" be then?

Textualism is a rejection of an inquiry into what the "original intent" of the legislators was.  Or rather the only evidence it accepts about their intent is the words they chose to include in the statute.  Most of what I described above, about avoiding compiling definitions that ignore the context of the phrase is expressly a correllary of NOT trying to create a new intent for the statute as passed.  Judges are very clever when they want to manipulate language.

In any event, I hope its clearer. 

General Comments / Re: SCOTUS protects LGBTQ workers
« on: June 17, 2020, 01:15:42 PM »
Are you sure there's a limitation on old case rulings being overturned? I've heard of many instances where people behind bars for 25 years have had a new DNA test done and been released immediately when it was determined that their guilty verdict was bogus. Granted that's criminal and not civil.

There's no statute of limitation for proving you didn't commit a crime.  There are statute of limitations limiting when the state can charge you with a crime, though murder often doesn't have a statute of limitations.  Most civil actions have fairly short limitations on bringing the case.  Appeals have their own time requirements.

General Comments / Re: SCOTUS protects LGBTQ workers
« on: June 17, 2020, 01:12:49 PM »
I see. So textualism means interpreting old law based on new understanding of words, as opposed to the intent of the legislators?

No, it means the opposite and assumes a common understanding of the words in context.  If intent - meaning what they were thinking, but not what they included - then no religion that the Founders weren't already familiar with and had in mind would be included.  But that intent might have been in the minds of some of the Founders, but not others, for instance if one or more of them was thinking of Paganism, Hinduism or any of a host of animist beliefs.  If the Founders intent mattered, any judicial matters made based on scientific discoveries made since 1789 would be have to be judged in terms of whether the Founders had thought about them.

Actually no, that's a warped description of originalism (with an overlay of strict constructionism), which are other judicial philosophies (though strict constructionism is a rare philosophy and not well regarded even by conservative justices).  Take a look at the Wiki for Textualism it explains it what it is and how it differs from those philosophies with a fair bit of accuracy.  In particular, you may also want to read up on those two philosophies so that you can distinguish them going forward. 

There's no part of textualism that limits concepts to what the Founders had in mind.  Originalism does incorporate part of that concept for interpretation of the Constitution.  But even in interpreting the Constitution (which doesn't apply in this decision), advocates are not the literalists you are describing.

General Comments / Re: SCOTUS protects LGBTQ workers
« on: June 16, 2020, 01:03:16 PM »
Ok, so putting aside the definition of textualism for the moment, if the SC is *not* outright updating the law (officially) that means they are claiming this was always the law had to be interpreted, correct?

Don't mistake reality.  They updated the law, there's zero question of that.  The mechanic they used to do it is to claim that it never could have been read any other way, and even in 1965 that's what it meant.  It's contra-factual.  But yes, they are claiming that is is always how the law worked.

Does that not imply that all previous trials where an alternate meaning was used by the judge are retroactively a misreading of the law, and does that entitle any losers of past cases to have the cases re-opened since the rulings were contrary to the law at the time?

Well they largely also claimed that this is limited to Title VII, and dismissed with a handwaive the identical language in something like 45 other statutes (Alito including a list of citations in his appendix).  They did a handwaive that this doesn't resolve the bathroom issue, for example, which is "separate issue".  But that's a bizarre opinion.  If there's no other way to read the phrase, then it has to read the same way everywhere else it appears.

Previous cases may have appeal rights, depends on the case.  Certainly you can expect thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of new filings to relitigate this issue across the entire legal system.

While activists might think that's great, I don't see it as remotely preferrable to a legislative solution.  I mean in the case of women's sports, both sides have a morally right argument.  Trans athletes want their identity respected, and for the same reasons that we passed a law to protect women's access to sport that prevents men from competing against them natural born women will be permanently disadvantaged if trans-athletes can compete.  The SC's opinion goes beyond what was there before, arguably allowing gender fluid athletes to flip back and forth between gendered competitions based upon their changing identity preferences.  Congress could have reached a balanced approach (or not) that at least tried to resolve that conflict, the Court's blunt hammer not so much.  Women lose on this issue because transwomen are more protected by a protection from discrimination based on "sex" than women are notwithstanding the "sex" protection was explicitly passed to protect women. 

General Comments / Re: SCOTUS protects LGBTQ workers
« on: June 16, 2020, 11:29:43 AM »
Actually a purely textual reading does lead to this result - See Gorsuch's opinion for the majority. Kavanaugh was legislating from the bench.  ::)

I find it frustrating when people that don't understand something pretend they do.  The essence of textualism, which can find in direct quotes from Scalia, is the interpretation of the words in the statute in the context in which they were passed and the meaning they had to reasonable people at that time.  It's a principal that is rooted on predictability of the law, stability of the law and the very Constitutional idea that Congress changes laws, not the courts.

Gorsuch is often a textualist, but here his opinion is only in the form of textualism.  It's actually literalist.  He expressly pulls individual words in the phrase out (textualism always requires you consider the whole phrase, or even the whole sentence), to put them together in a way that generates a result.

If you want to see that in real action, you can look at Alito's dissent (and the dozens of pages of attachments), where he goes into detail about the real time dictionary definitions (circa 1965).

Seriously, Gorsuch and Kagan are both proponents of textualism, one a conservative, the other a liberal - that doesn't mean that there is never ambiguity in the textual analysis.  Heck, all the SC judges are textualists today.  It's just lazy ascribing nefarious motives or thought to a judgment just because one doesn't agree with it.

I reject your lazy thoughts.  I agree with the result.  That doesn't change that the opinion is poorly reasoned and the consequences of that will be far reaching.

I don't know any of this legal wizardry, but it seems to me pretty common sense that declaring the current law to say that firing someone for sexual or gender orientation to be illegal, means it always was. If it wasn't always then it means the law is changing now, which is a legislative prerogative.

The essence of textualism is a rejection of the concept of "updating" the law to fit current social mores into existing language that never meant what one would like it to mean now.  Prior to the rise of textualism, the court routinely interpreted laws to mean things that were even contrary to the plain meaning of the words, using things like legislative history to "guess" at what the legislators were really trying to do rather than relying on what they did.  It was just an "amazing coincidence" that what the legislators were "really trying to do" was often the exact same thing the Justices wanted to do with the case.

This opinion is 100% about "updating" the law to match current mores.  The history on this leads to no other conclusion based on all the times its been considered and never come out this way, and at the time far from intended to protect homosexuality in employment people were still arresting people and subjecting them to mental health "care" for being homosexual.  Updating laws is the diametric opposite of textualism.

But if it *was* always the law then it means that those who drafted the law intended that, no? Or is the idea that the lawmakers unintentionally made this into law by using terminology that would change over time in meaning?

You should read the opinion.  The conclusion was that the language could never have been read any other way (despite the fact that it was literally read the other way by everyone, including 10 circuit courts, Congress, administrative agencies, the general population, and 19 SC Justices who never once held discrimination based on sexual orientation to the same standard as discrimination based on sex).

Thematically, the inescapable conclusion is that being anti-homosexuality is nothing but sexism.  The objection of the person that is anti-gay is according to the court a reflection of nothing more than an intent to discriminate based on gender.  If you interpret it otherwise the opinion's logic falls apart.  Notwithstanding that we have decades of laws and jursiprudence that treat it separately, that consider discrimination based on sexual orientation to me unique and distinct from discrimination based on sex.

Let's say that you have a law in favour of freedom of religion, and everyone is allowed to practice their religion freely. But the original legislators didn't consider Satanism to be a legitimate religion, and would have been horrified with the idea that their law allows even Satanism to be practiced freely. But let's say modern people on the other hand do consider Satanism just another religion.

That is textualism.  Much like the 1965 Act was already interpreted to protect a man from sexual harrasment by other men.  It's an inescapable consequence of the choice of words used.  If the act said it was illegal to discriminate against women, a different result happens, but the act said it was it was illegal to discriminate based on sex, which of necessity applies to both genders.

Now, if instead of Satanism, you were to include "lack of religion" you might be starting to cross the line.  But this case is more akin to saying that protection from discrimination against religion is really about belief, so if you passionately believe in the moral imperative of being a Union soldier in Civil War reenactments you would be protected from discrimination by your employer under the act and they would be required to reasonably facilitate your beliefs and observances.

Should the courts wait for a law that explicitly declares that Satanism is also included in "All religions"? Or should the courts accept that modern understanding of 'religion' has changed and Satanism is also included, even though that wasn't the original intent of the legislators?

Religion didn't change.  In 1965 the court recognized conscientious objectors, whose belief was not required to be tied to a belief in a god.  Here's what they said:  "[w]hether a given belief that is sincere and meaningful occupies a place in the life of its possessor parallel to that filled by the orthodox belief in God of one who clearly qualifies for the exemption. Where such beliefs have parallel positions in the lives of their respective holders we cannot say that one is ‘in relation to a Supreme Being’ and the other is not."

Of course, that's why analogies are tough to use.  Too much extraneous baggage.

It's like saying "All people have the right to a fair and speedy trial", and having the law specify explicitly that yes, this includes women, Jews and Indians. Isn't the modern understanding that women, Jews and Indians are also included in "All people", even though perhaps once they weren't?

All again, textualism would point out that even at the time "all people" had a general meaning easily understood that in fact included all people.    Your arguments really don't come close to addressing what you seem to think they do.

But to give you the counter example of what textualism was fighting against.  The living Constitution crowd may look at that same passage, and decide that it only protects the right of a speedy trial to those people who are politically correct.  They'd look at it and say that those with racist views are inherently sub-human, for example, and non-humans can't be all people and therefore racists are not entitled to a speedy trial.  However, they may love dogs, cats and other pets and desire that such animals be granted a hearing prior to being put to sleep, so they not withstanding their lack of "human-ness," are defined to be people based on their compassion and loyalty.  There's no requirement for consistency, the language always bends to give the result the judge thinks is "right."  And when you come to that passage and try to live your life according to it, you'd need a great lawyer to even begin to explain to you the arcana that surrounds all the caveats and exceptions.

General Comments / Re: SCOTUS protects LGBTQ workers
« on: June 15, 2020, 08:59:25 PM »
Actually no.  A purely textualist reading does not lead to this result - see Kavanaugh's dissent for a textualist reading.  This was a purely literalist reading (which, to my knowledge, no legal practioners other than certain amubulance chasers have ever endorsed). 

The SC interpretation literally violates nearly every principal of statutory construction and does quite literally call into question the stability of the rule of law.  But hey, everyone that read an opinion column is a lawyer these days.

General Comments / Re: SCOTUS protects LGBTQ workers
« on: June 15, 2020, 08:47:10 PM »
That's going to be a "fun" one to watch get tested in the courts. Title VII is statute. The 1st Amendment is part of the Constitution. When statute is in conflict with the Constitution, the Constitution wins. So where Title VII meets up with religious organizations, the protections aren't likely to be as absolute.

As Alito helpfully pointed out, some 45 different statutes refer to discrimination based on sex.  So this is going to go far beyond Title VII.  Kavanaugh's dissent pointed out that even though those 45 laws refer to sex there is a large number of other laws that independently refer to discrimination based on sexual orientation (which per the SC's reasoning is unnecessary).  K also pointed out that of the 30 federal judges that directly considered this question all 30 ruled the other way, and it wasn't until 2017 that any contrary circuit court opinion emerged (previously 10 circuits rules the other way).  He also noted that 19 Supreme Court Justices (including many on the SC today) have decided cases based on sexual orientation, without even once flagging that they should apply heightened scrutiny to the decision (which is what applies in cases of sex discrimination).  Effectively decades of SC precedent decided on erroneous basis (this wouldn't necessarily change the result, but it certainly created an entire body of precedent and law that is effectively completely useless as precedent). 

How did 19 SC justices miss what this court says is the only possible interpretation?  How did the 30 judges?  Why has every Congress since 1975 introduced a proposed amendment to add sexual orientation (some have even had one house or the other pass such amendments, including 3 times in the last 5 years)?

I get liking the result, but this is NOTHING but a result orientated decision that constitutes judicial law making.

General Comments / Re: SCOTUS protects LGBTQ workers
« on: June 15, 2020, 07:33:02 PM »
I don't know how you could even determine that someone is homosexual without using their gender as a part of the equation. I am most definitely not knowledgeable enough to determine if that is part of the ruling, and I choose not to read enough to weigh in on the basis of their decision.

The court posited you could ask it on the employment form, and have a third party strip gender identifiers from the form.  A strained hypothetical I grant.  They then explained, that the person reading the question, if they didn't know what homosexuality was, couldn't define the term without understanding gender therefore it was sex discrimination.   And I'm not kidding about how that played out.

General Comments / Re: SCOTUS protects LGBTQ workers
« on: June 15, 2020, 07:31:02 PM »
I think TheDeamon, this actually is another strong signal that the SC can be intimidated.  The decision is nonsensical.  It literally does things, like assuming that "sex" is defined solely to have a gender based meaning, and then determines that it's inescapable that discrimination against homosexuality and transgenderism is prohibited by the word "sex".  The logic is effectively, that if you wouldn't discriminate against a man that likes women, it is solely the gender of the woman that women that you are discriminating on.  The dissent points out that if you include all four cases, you end up with firing decisions based on sexual orientation without regard to sex.

May I ask how interracial marriages would work based on your interpretation? According to your own interpretation of the law, are you allowed to fire someone for being in an interracial relationship, or for not being in one?

It's certainly a fair criticism, and it's one of the places that the dissent's explanation was particularly weak.  I think that's largely because the SC's decision on cross race marriages was not based on logic either, but rather based on the inescapable fact that opposition to cross race marriages was fundamentally rooted in racism and therefore inherently a discrimination based on race.  Logically, one could have argued very similarly that an employer that hired both black and white employees but not any employee of either race who was involved in a cross race marriage was not discriminating based on race.

Again, though I think the fact that the only opposition one could have to cross race marriages is racism is what decided that issue.  While there's an easy parallel to marriage in the race context and the homosexuality context (not so much the transgendered context), it falls apart when you try to connect that to sexism (which would be the relevant characteristic).  The closest you can get is to some idea of violating "gender expectations" (but that's already protected conduct) and it's hard to see how it would even apply in all cases of homosexual relationships and not in heterosexual ones.  Effectively, there's no tie to a secret sexism involved, which puts it in a different category than the unstated tie to racism.

But I agree, that's one of the weakest points for the argument. 

If one's allowed to fire someone because of the gender of the person they're attracted to, why wouldn't you be able to fire them for the race of the person they're attracted to?

Well again, as noted above, because the later is inherently racist and the former isn't sexist.

To be clear though, I don't think you should be able to fire someone in either case.  Congress should have fixed this long since.  My objection is not to "fixing" this its to unelected Justices pronouncing their rules with the force of law in violation of the Constitution. 

General Comments / Re: SCOTUS protects LGBTQ workers
« on: June 15, 2020, 07:22:04 PM »
Is that what they 'literally' said, did the judges actually base their argument on the intent of the original legislators -- or are you assuming this to be the case?

Read the opinion.  I did.  Understand how law, and statutory interpretation works.  The Court stated that they didn't need to delve into the intent (which is a bizarre interpretation) because the word "sex" is so clear that NO ONE (Notwithstanding 60 years of history) could ever have plausibly read the provision in any way that doesn't prohibit discrimination based on homosexuality and gender identity.

It's a truly stunning bit of revisionist 'splaining.

Perhaps they based it on the simple meaning of the words in the law instead? (I've not read the reasoning itself myself, only read a summary of it, so perhaps I'm missing something)

Given that they "accepted" sex to mean biological sex, and then interpreted as the only plausible reading of the statute, I'm gonna guess you'll agree with what they wrote.  You should read it.

That said, you should read the dissents as well.

Well, if the current legislators actually disagree, they can clarify the law and use more precise language this time.

I addressed that.  Not going to happen.  Doesn't make the SC creating law in violation of the Constitution okay.

General Comments / Re: SCOTUS protects LGBTQ workers
« on: June 15, 2020, 07:17:37 PM »
I can see this more likely escalating conflicts with right-wing or religious organizations in how they want to build their internal staffing. In the example given in the article, a gay man was fired for joining a gay softball team, which would now be prohibited, and which makes sense to me all things being equal. But now let's say the guy is working for some church that advocates against whatever his lifestyle entails. Would they be entitled under religious freedom to argue he violates the job requirements and literally cannot perform the job adequately, or would that now be in violation because he's protected no matter what?

The court went into religious freedoms, and expressly cited that the defense of religion act is "supra legislation" that overrules other statutes including Title VII in certain circumstances.  I don't find that comforting, what that is, is an invitation to sue the living crap out of religious institutions to define the limit and scope of that right.

General Comments / Re: SCOTUS protects LGBTQ workers
« on: June 15, 2020, 07:15:46 PM »
I think TheDeamon, this actually is another strong signal that the SC can be intimidated.  The decision is nonsensical.  It literally does things, like assuming that "sex" is defined solely to have a gender based meaning, and then determines that it's inescapable that discrimination against homosexuality and transgenderism is prohibited by the word "sex".  The logic is effectively, that if you wouldn't discriminate against a man that likes women, it is solely the gender of the woman that women that you are discriminating on.  The dissent points out that if you include all four cases, you end up with firing decisions based on sexual orientation without regard to sex. 

Moreover, interpretation of a statute requires that it be interpreted as it was understood by reasonable people at the time it was passed.  At the time it was passed, 49 states and DC outlawed homosexuality and the concept of gender dsyphoria was unheard of, the Federal government investigated people for acts of homosexuality and fired them for them (for more than a decade after the law), and homosexuality was still in the DSM as a mental health condition.  Nonetheless, the Court says that at that time, the understanding of the word "sex" in this statute should have been understood by reasonable people to include discrimination against homosexual and transgendered individuals.

That's beyond straining the credibility of the language.

The reason this is important, is that judicial made law is arbitrary and necessarily a blunt hammer.  They can't expound without openly exceeding their Constitutional authority, therefore they have to be vague.  Congress on the other hand, if it fixes a law, can create hundreds of related provisions, or thousands, or zero as it deems prudent, and we wouldn't be left with not having any clue what this means.

Does this reopen every single case that was apparently erroneously dismissed?  Does this mean that biological women now lose out on any ability to resist transgender women in sport?  Does this mean that your health insurance costs have increased because your policy will now be required to protect you both for your own pregnancy and your own testicular cancer?

And I think, gender based mentoring is absolutely low hanging fruit.  There's no consistent way to read the SC's opinion and retain it.  It's trivially easy that the particular job benefit is available to one identical candidate versus the other with the only factor differentiating the two being gender.  The only thing that will save it is if no one get's litigious.  Honestly, this interpretation calls into question the existing jurisprudence on all of this.

General Comments / Re: SCOTUS protects LGBTQ workers
« on: June 15, 2020, 06:31:28 PM »
I don't agree that the reasoning makes sense.  The Supreme Court literally said that "sex" as used in the 1964 statute could have never been interpreted in any other way but to prohibit discrimination based on homosexual status or gender identity.  That even in 1964 that would have been plainly understood from the terms.  That effectively, the past 60 years just reflect every Court of Appeals (through 2017), Congress (currently has pending amendments to add those provisions), and the EEOC (for 45 years), apparently being just too stupid to read the sentence correctly.

It's the most bizarre resort to textualism I've ever seen, effectively goes all the way through and out the other side as activism.

I don't think the SC's read today is legitimate.  They passed a new law in the guise of interpreting a statute.

My best guess is that the consequences of this are going to have more impact than any judicial interpretation since Roe v. Wade, and very likely it will ultimately be seen as a poorly decided results orientated decision.  Like for example, this would seem to settle all debates about whether transgender athletes can compete in professional women's sports (and maybe college given that getting paid seems to be on the horizon) and eliminate any and all chemical tests that relate to hormone levels or requirements.  It would seem to eliminate any right to separate bathrooms or locker rooms based on sex in a number of contexts as well.  It may eliminate any right to create women's groups in the office, or to have programs for gender based mentoring that support women - it's hard to see how they would survive. 

That said, it's hard to imagine anything being done about it.  Culturally the issue has long been settled.  Firing someone because of their homosexual status is repugnant.  Even gender identity, though less settled, was heading the same way.  Can't imagine anyone amending Title VII to remove the newly discovered rights (that were so obvious that no other possible interpretation could have been made in1964 and all times forward).

General Comments / Re: The CHAZ
« on: June 15, 2020, 10:21:00 AM »
Seems the CHAZ has rebranded itself. It's now CHOP instead, for Capital Hill Organized Protest.

To be honest, I think they talked to their lawyers.  The CHAZ is literally an insurrection.  All that was lacking was an order from Trump and federal forces would have been authorized to disperse and arrest everyone defending or supporting the zone.  If they were convicted of participating in an insurrection, 10 years in prison and a permanent ban from holding public office in the United States.  Note now, how carefully the CHOP spokespeople are to claim that they are still part of the United States.  Of course, they don't get the final say.

Fair points Fenring, but I would address them simply.  If the protestors can't point to the specific John Smith or policy that is the cause of their suffering, how can their protest be against anything but the vaguely defined system.

Our current government is masterfully designed to oppress and take away people's rights with zero accountability.  The fourth amendment makes it unConstitutional to obtain a warrant without probable cause, yet Flynn was spied on without even reasonable suspicion.  No one has going to jail or even faced charges.  You'd be hard pressed to even point to the person that is "responsible".  That's a straight forward case, involving people with maximum privilege.

How exactly does some one point to the person that is "responsible" for police abuse that occurs across an entire country based on race?  What policy is it?  How does one point to what policy is causing generations of black people to be born into situations with little financial hope, failing educational prospects and aggressive policing for things that don't feel like a crime (e.g., driving while black)?  What policy or person can you point to that makes every interaction for a black man with the police more dangerous than for a white man?

General Comments / Re: Defund the police
« on: June 09, 2020, 03:01:58 PM »
Tomato, tomato. If there are $X in education, and you remove $Y, then X-Y < X. Reducing government is not the same as not expanding it.

It's fundamentally different.  It's as different as keeping what you grow in your field versus surrendering it all to the "bossman" who gives you back the portion they think you need.  The Feds should not be taxing you to take money they then give back to you on education.

Unless perhaps you are suggesting that the states would subsequently add $Y back in to the budget, which seems highly unlikely.

State budgets are a mess.  They will stay a mess until we fundamentally reform the ability to make future commitments.  A politician should only be able to agree to what they are funding from their budget for pensions, not promise that the state will lock up 40 years of its budgets to pay generous pensions while that politician themselves doesn't have to put anything in.

We've allowed politicians to build their power bases for decades by selling the future and now that "future" has come and our budgets no longer have "discretion" in them.  Everything is a mandate.

You could equally say that you are not actually defunding the police by the removal of some of the $4.7 billion doled out to state and local law enforcement. I expect that supporters of the police would call it defunding the police. (reworded by edit)

Again, not clear to me that police should be "defunded," rather they should be right sized and we should carefully consider if reallocating money, personnel and time to other functions would be a better benefit.  We are asking the police to be generalists prepared for anything.  Why not have specialists for domestic situations?  Or specialists for dealing with drug and alcohol addicts?  People that come to the situation already knowing a good bit about what's going on?

General Comments / Re: Defund the police
« on: June 09, 2020, 02:54:05 PM »
I would agree with the above. Police services with regards to how their rules and SOP should be consistent as well their must be a consistent way to hold them accountable. Most other professions have such measures in place.

Except I think you're not listening if you believe the above.  Police serving a poor community need to follow very different standards to serve that community in the way it wants and needs.  Those police officers need to move past an idea that they are there to "protect" the rest of the city from that community and understand they are they to protect that community.

National standards are even worse that the top level local "standards" we impose today.  Less responsive.

The entire message of this protest is about being heard at the most local level, and you think even more top down management will do that?

Washington was facing the classic question of whether the ends justify the means.  And like many others they didn't believe that they did, that the ends could be pursued with more appropriate means.

That's the problem we're facing now.  Can the ends be achieved with more appropriate means?  On the one hand, looting has zero do with the actual problem, it detracts from the message and it's not even clear what the goal is.  On the other hand, nothing short of riots and looting seems to have made any difference.  Is there another means to achieve the end?

For the looting to be wrong in context there has to be another way to achieve the goal. 

On the other hand, we should all be able to agree that professional looters that aren't expressing a rage, whose goal is self enrichment or simple chaos should not be given the same benefit of the doubt.

General Comments / Re: Fix it
« on: June 09, 2020, 02:44:42 PM »
Okay, to be fair Crunch didn't make a point either, he just argued with an irrelevant sound bite.  Doesn't excuse arguing back in the same manner.  Though it seems not to be in vogue today it's a pretty basic principal, two wrongs don't make a right.  You should remember that no matter who you are responding to, other people are reading your arguments as well, so make them good and meaningful and address rather than ignore the problems.

General Comments / Re: Defund the police
« on: June 09, 2020, 01:26:04 PM »
No dodging.  What did you mean?

Defunding the DOE is not defunding Education.  Education is primarily funded at the local and state level.  The Federal Government shouldn't even be involved.

I thought you were making a point, but apparently you're just using memes to restate the left belief that the Federal government should be expanded to pay for everything all the time.

General Comments / Re: Defund the police
« on: June 09, 2020, 01:13:01 PM »
Not really.  I have to ask you what you meant by it.  Did you have a point?  Pointing to Trump is not a point.

Is anybody defending the people who looted stores?

Lot's of people actually.  Actually saw a pretty good rant on it that's even fairly persuasive.  But why ask?

General Comments / Re: Fix it
« on: June 09, 2020, 01:08:30 PM »
And I was very confident when you found yourself unable to explain a reasonable critique you'd make it personal and ignore the substance.  I guess we each now know the other too well.

General Comments / Re: Defund the police
« on: June 09, 2020, 01:05:49 PM »
Don't think I ever expressed support for defunding WHO.  I would like to see better accountability from all UN agencies.

I don't support "defunding" public schools.  I do support school choice, which is not the same thing, and breaking teacher's unions (I support breaking all public employee unions, teachers, police and otherwise).  I think it's fascinating that we have a thread arguing about police unions protecting bad cops, when we've had arguments about teachers unions making it impossible to fire bad teachers for years.

Not sure what "defunding" Californina even means.  CA is a sovereign entity that collects it's own taxes.  The Federal Government should be collecting taxes for the limited purposes that the Federal government is charged with under the Constitution, not to redistribute to states amounts that they should be collecting directly.

I'm actually on the fence about defunding the police.  Don't get me wrong the policy as advocated by the screaming voices on the left is nonsensical and dangerous, but the question itself has merit.  Is funding the police the most effective way to achieve the goals we are trying to achieve?  If transferring a portion of those funds to another service generates a bigger gain in the goals of compliance with law it's a good thing.  If we'd have to spend $3 billion on support for every $1 billion we pull from the police its not a good thing.  It's going to require serious minds really working collaboratively, and unfortunately we're not in a place where collaboration is accepted, it's totally a you're with us or against us game.

General Comments / Re: Fix it
« on: June 09, 2020, 12:31:02 PM »
Given that, as Kasandra pointed out, France has 1/13 the police killing rate of the USA, does is really follow that France has a problem, based exclusively on your example?  I expect the real point of your post, however, was to suggest that the USA is really not so bad, because, look, other people think that France has a problem.  But if France has a problem, then the USA has a problem that is 13 times bigger, so... not a great argument - that mustn't have been your point.

And this is why its misleading.  If France has 1/13 the killing rate but everyone dead is from the minority group then they have a far bigger problem.  If they have 1/13 the killing rate and 10X the violence rather they have a different bigger problem.

But even at a basic level, the idea that the rates are directly comparable without context is nonsense.  What level of violent crime occurs in the 2 countries how does that interact with the death rate?  You don't know, and from this post its clear that the rate is useful for your arguments without even caring about it's relevance.  Effectively it's cited as proof of substance context free, when the context is required for it to actually be substantively relevant.

General Comments / Re: Fix it
« on: June 09, 2020, 12:26:46 PM »
It's interesting that in discussion police brutality and bad officers you're arguing about the death rate.  Sure that's easy to find, but it's rare everywhere for the police to kill someone.  I'd be much more curious how often say the French police or the British police beat someone compared to US officers.  How often suspects in custody are beaten or assaulted.  How often those organizations use violence at all.

Are you offering to find out and report back?

Nope already tired.  Hard to find the relevant data.  Should make you wonder though why its so easy to find one set and not the other, but it won't because the available data plays into the conclusions you want to reach even if it's not the most relevant to the analysis.

Focusing on deaths is a tiny tiny part of the puzzle.

But an effective indicator, as it helps place a value on different categories of human lives.

It's a poor indicator, specifically because it DOESN'T place a value on different categories of human lives, while appearing to do so.  It's in fact more likely to be misleading than probabitive without accounting for other factors.  The overall use of violence would be better, but would still need to account for the actual crimes and circumstances to get to a point of reflecting on the value of different categories of human lives.

Also when you look at the demographics you should ask if they were properly weighted to account for race.  The US is massively diverse compared to some of those countries.  I wouldn't be surprised at all, if in France for example, police interactions with the Muslim minority have dramatically different results than with the majority (we know this difference occurs in the US). 

There are so many factors that change how this plays out in the US that don't apply in Europe.

Again, can you make a case one way or another?

A case for what?

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 77