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 - DonaldD

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 13
101
General Comments / Re: Veto Theatrics
« on: March 15, 2019, 06:12:56 AM »
One could think of the veto as a decision not to sign a bill into law, but the only act associated with a veto is sending it back to congress, essentially with markups.  In a practical sense, the act of returning it to congress is the actual veto of a bill.  There is no other action involved.

102
General Comments / Re: Veto Theatrics
« on: March 14, 2019, 09:16:08 PM »
Quote
No. A Veto is a Veto which congress can over-ride.
This is a meaningless tautology.  What, specifically, comprises the positive act of a presidential veto, and does this act involve "[signing] a piece of paper"?

Note that stating his objections in writing and returning the bill to congress does not in practice involve signing anything, so staging an event where Trump torturously writes down his objections to a legal document would not likely be the television masterpiece to rally his troops and garner ratings...

103
General Comments / Re: Veto Theatrics
« on: March 14, 2019, 07:43:48 PM »
Isn't the presidential veto the act of NOT signing a piece of paper? 

104
General Comments / Re: Lowering the voting age
« on: March 14, 2019, 05:34:37 PM »
If 12-year olds charged with crimes can be charged as adults, then 12-year olds should clearly be able to vote...
or serve in the military, fly airlines, have sexual relationships with other adults, buy alcohol, all that, right? I mean, why not?
Exactly.  Making comparisons of voting to drinking or other activities is silly.  The question is whether a) age is relevant and b) whether there are any laws that constrain the decision.  Analogies tend to be simply emotion-based partisanship.

105
General Comments / Re: Lowering the voting age
« on: March 14, 2019, 04:49:11 PM »
If 12-year olds charged with crimes can be charged as adults, then 12-year olds should clearly be able to vote...

106
General Comments / Re: What are Democrats running on in 2020?
« on: March 13, 2019, 01:46:38 PM »
Quote
But when the arguments bleed over into blood liable that isn't what's happening
Blood Libel?  Really?  OK, I'll bite - where are leftists claiming that jews have been murdering christians for their blood?  Sure, there are nazis, Russian nationalists and muslim nutbars making these claims, but nobody in the mainstream of US politics.

107
General Comments / Re: What are Democrats running on in 2020?
« on: March 13, 2019, 11:59:50 AM »
Quote
I mean it's an open secret that anti-semitism is on the rise in continental Europe (and not from their right wing)
Wait... what? There is absolutely a trend towards anti-semitism from both the political right and left - pretending that it is not from the right wing is simply a-factual - unless you do not believe that Viktor Orbán, or the P.I.S. Party, or the A.F.D, or the National Front, exist.

Or do you simply mean that anti-semitism is so entrenched in the European right wing that its prevalence has simply not increased in the recent past?  That also would not be correct.

108
General Comments / Re: What are Democrats running on in 2020?
« on: March 11, 2019, 07:10:47 AM »
Quote
AOC is either an idiot, or pushing a deeper agenda that has little to no bearing with respect to what she claims to be all about.
OK, so then AOC is not at all like Stalin, but may be simply using a technique common to all politicians ever elected (relying on "useful idiots").

Heck, Donald Trump is far more reliant on "useful idiots" than is AOC ("I could shoot someone on 5th avenue and not lose votes")

Now, if you mean the same "useful idiots" to which Russia was allegedly referring, then again, you are simply wrong - first off, it was Lenin to whom the reference was first apocryphally attributed, not Stalin, so your comparison of AOC to Stalin as opposed to Lenin already fails.  Secondly, there is little evidence that either Stalin or Lenin actually used the term, whereas, there is ample reference to other politicians using it, most especially American anti-communist propagandists using it to smear their own political opponents (do you notice a pattern?)

So basically, your argument comes down to AOC must be more like Stalin because you believe that the only people who could reasonably support her positions are stupid; displaying that, instead of AOC sharing anything with Stalin, you are sharing far more with Joe McCarthy.

109
General Comments / Re: What are Democrats running on in 2020?
« on: March 10, 2019, 07:07:28 PM »
If you somehow interpreted my response as equating Stalin and Lenin, then you need to address the filters you apply while reading text.

I get that it's convenient (and lazy) to equate political foes with soviet or third world socialist dictatorships (and let's face it, equating someone to Stalin is really no more useful than comparing them to Hitler) but there is little to nothing in common between AOC's positions and Stalin or Stalinism.  Is AOC advocating rapid industrialization?  Nationalization of agriculture? Communist revolutions? State violence against specific economic classes?  The murder of 20 million people?

How specifically is she more like Stalin than Lenin?  And how, specifically, is what she is advocating more like Stalinism than, say, Canadian or Norwegian socialism?  Or is it simply not scary enough to say "AOC is advocating that we become more Canadian?"

110
General Comments / Re: What are Democrats running on in 2020?
« on: March 10, 2019, 04:26:42 PM »
Quote
Bernie does a decent enough job as pulling a Vladimir Lenin. The problem is AOC appears to want to be Stalin
I'm trying to figure out whether this is trolling, or whether you are so far gone as to honestly believe what you are writing.

111
General Comments / Re: Why is May still around?
« on: February 26, 2019, 01:30:46 PM »
"Why is May still around?"

It's simple, really; because April immediately preceding June would be just wrong.

112
General Comments / Re: 12-year old non-violent criminals
« on: February 23, 2019, 05:00:39 PM »
Quote
Edit: Also, IIRC, there is ScotUS precedent regarding curtailment of 1st Amendment Rights as it regards to students as well. IE: They CAN impose dress codes, and punish students for their attire, as 1st Amendment Protections for "freedom of speech" DO have restrictions when it comes to educational environments.
There is a difference between the ability to curtail a student's actions, and forcing students into participating in actions with which they do not agree.

It's been more than 75 years since that distinction was recognized in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette


113
General Comments / Re: House Closes Investigation
« on: February 22, 2019, 12:13:50 PM »
And as for "you guys", I have been on the record since even before the election calling for an investigation focussed on Russia, not on who may have benefitted, exactly because I knew such an investigation would get bogged down in exactly this type of partisan hackery, where people ignore the dangers to the electoral system and the country because NOT doing so would tend to delegitimize their own team, leading to people who used to be against things like executive overreach now finding as acceptable anything short of criminal activity proven in a court of law.

114
General Comments / Re: House Closes Investigation
« on: February 22, 2019, 12:01:05 PM »
Quote
The correct remedy for moral failings is to vote someone out of office
Absolutely - or at least, that is certainly one remedy.

But that is completely different from implying, as you did before, that anything short of criminal activity by your preferred elected officials is acceptable to you and more, that it should be acceptable to everybody. ("No one - and I mean no one - should care about any version of "collusion" that does not represent illegal conduct.")

115
General Comments / Re: 12-year old non-violent criminals
« on: February 22, 2019, 11:53:59 AM »
Quote
Donald, do you think a child should be allowed to wear a t-shirt with a swastika and a white supremacist slogan on it to school?
Lloyd, there is no reason to bring up an irrelevant hypothetical: the Supreme Court of the USA has ruled since the 1940s that the school could not force this child to act differently than he was acting during the recitation of the pledge.  Has the Supreme Court ruled unequivocally that children are allowed to dress in whatever fashion they prefer, without limits?  Or specifically, has the Supreme Court ruled that schools cannot discipline children for wearing swastikas and white supremacist propaganda on their clothing, and a child was disciplined for doing so regardless?

Why is it so controversial that respecting the rights of children (as defined for decades by the highest court in the country) should be an expectation?

116
General Comments / Re: 12-year old non-violent criminals
« on: February 22, 2019, 06:47:29 AM »
Did you really just ask how acceptable it is for a child to exercise their constitutional rights in a way that has been accepted and protected by the federal courts for the better part of a century?

117
General Comments / Re: 12-year old non-violent criminals
« on: February 21, 2019, 10:49:28 PM »
Quote
The Pledge of Allegiance, something created after WW2, and at the dawn of the Civil Rights Era for blacks is Racist?
The pledge is simply a collection of words, referencing the concept of the flag of the USA.  The flag itself is simply a collection of geometric shapes.  Neither is inherently "racist."  However, the flag is NOT simply just a collection of geometric shapes, is it?  It is a symbol, and as such different people imbue that symbol with different meaning - and like it or not, many, many people interpret that symbol to have a particular meaning with which you do not agree - that is symbolizes the racism they see as inherent in the structure of your country, your society.

This is not complicated, and it is not exactly a secret.  People have been screaming this at the top of their lungs for years.

Quote
You don't do it that way.
What exactly is the way that he did it that he shouldn't have?  Sitting down, and refusing to stand?  Asking whether the teacher meant Africa?  Let's be clear - he did it in exactly the correct way.  Once the situation was escalated, it was no longer about his actions, and making his political stance clear - it was about a situation where adults let a situation get out of hand, and expecting the 12-year old to be the adult in the room.  This is not the White House: you cannot expect a 12 year old (or 11 year old, whatever) to maintain a rational, adult, decorum, and to behave as anything but a child, when faced with adults mistreating him.

118
General Comments / Re: House Closes Investigation
« on: February 21, 2019, 10:35:11 PM »
No, limiting the word to one of legality is moving the goalposts, but regardless, a) this definition does not differ substantively from that provided by Wayward Son (it's almost word for word the same - it even has the word "or" in basically the same spot "fraud OR gaining an unfair advantage") and b) with whom exactly was the Trump campaign negotiating or bargaining?

119
General Comments / Re: House Closes Investigation
« on: February 21, 2019, 05:31:22 PM »
Quote
No one - and I mean no one - should care about any version of "collusion" that does not represent illegal conduct.
Since when did the standards of acceptable behaviour by elected officials (or those running for office) drop to the level of "anything at all, so long as it is not a crime"?  Speaking of obfuscating...

120
General Comments / Re: 12-year old non-violent criminals
« on: February 20, 2019, 11:34:16 PM »
That's a strange response - do you think the 12 year old boy faked his own arrest?  Or maybe he instigated his substitute teacher into breaking school policy and getting fired?

121
General Comments / 12-year old non-violent criminals
« on: February 20, 2019, 05:10:24 PM »
AKA "black and brown children".

https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/19/opinions/florida-pledge-arrest-what-about-the-teacher-jones/index.htmlSetting aside the opinion portion of this opinion piece, and taking the school's allegations at face value (though they are disputed by the student) what we have is a 12-year-old boy being arrested for using his words and being verbally disruptive - even verbally threatening.

What is not in dispute is that the boy acted according to school policy in not standing for the pledge, and that the teacher, against school policy, interfered with the student.  The student then, again, using words and not actions or violence, disagreed with the teacher; at which point the teacher had the student removed from class, leading to (eventually) the student being arrested by the police for allegedly making threats.

People will be people, and people will be stupid.  It happens.  But why is it seemingly a default position that a 12-year-old, being unfairly treated by an adult and in an escalating situation, but where there is no violence, why is the default position to arrest him?  Angry 12-year-olds say stupid,  impulsive things - it's part of being 12, angry and with a brain not fully equipped to filter itself in all situations. 

122
General Comments / Re: Jussie Smollet got a sandwich
« on: February 15, 2019, 06:31:29 PM »
Pass the popcorn

123
General Comments / Re: Government Shutdown, Immigration Edition.
« on: January 29, 2019, 04:45:48 PM »
Quote
The bigger takeaway is the initial negotiation at the Whit House where Trump walked out after Nancy said reopening the government wouldn't increase the chances of her supporting a border wall.

He kept the government closed, Nancy's tune changed to "we won't negotiate while the government is shut down."
You do realize that those two statements are not inconsistent, right? The Democrats have been pretty consistent this time around that Republican attempts to hold the country hostage until the Democrats give in on any policy cannot be encouraged or rewarded.

124
General Comments / Re: Government Shutdown, Immigration Edition.
« on: January 29, 2019, 12:58:14 PM »
Quote
Also, stand by for Government shutdown 2.0 come February 15th.
Why do you think so?  The government shutdown was actually eating into his base, and cementing the standard opposition and even independents - and Trump's base is sacrosanct.

Far more likely is that he will declare a national emergency and leave it to the courts to overrule him.  If they don't, he gives his base what it wants, and he wins; if he loses, he gets to rail against the unelected, deep-state judicial branch, he gets to pretend that he actually made the decision to build the wall, he gets to rile up his base but in support of himself, and he still wins.

125
General Comments / Re: Wealth tax
« on: January 26, 2019, 12:08:24 PM »
Quote
Warren talks about how much money it will take in but is she factoring in how much will be lost over time because income tax won't get paid on that money anymore?
You seem to be conflating income tax with capital gains taxes.

126
General Comments / Re: Government Shutdown, Immigration Edition.
« on: January 18, 2019, 02:55:01 PM »
Quote
If it wasn't a danegeld situation
There's that, but the Dems are now also in the position of being asked to vote for funding the border wall, as opposed to simply not filibustering the Republican majority.  I could see the potential anger by their own base being a pretty big disincentive...

127
General Comments / Re: Government Shutdown, Immigration Edition.
« on: January 18, 2019, 02:51:46 PM »
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/white-house-denies-pelosi-leak-charge-details-from-kabul-cable

So, did Administration officials inform reporters that the congressional delegation had booked flights?

128
General Comments / Re: Government Shutdown, Immigration Edition.
« on: January 18, 2019, 02:38:26 PM »
Correct me if I go wrong, here, but didn't Trump have both houses firmly in Republican control for almost two full years wherein they could have allocated any amount of wall monies without the Dems having any ability to stop them?

If they had just done their job (assuming the Republicans thought that funding the wall was their job) this would no longer be an issue... or is there some subtlety of US politics that I'm missing..?

129
General Comments / Re: Government Shutdown, Immigration Edition.
« on: January 17, 2019, 07:21:50 PM »
This should probably go under the "Misleading or False Claims by Trump" thread, but:
Quote
This weekend visit to Afghanistan did not include a stop in Egypt.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/trump-denies-pelosi-aircraft-for-foreign-trip-in-response-to-call-for-state-of-the-union-delay

130
General Comments / Re: Government Shutdown, Immigration Edition.
« on: January 17, 2019, 06:01:54 PM »
Characterizing a trip to Afghanistan as a "junket" requires either a ridiculous amount of dishonesty or ignorance of what the word actually means.

131
General Comments / Re: Injustice of the Republican Tax bill
« on: January 11, 2019, 03:17:18 PM »
"and presumably sincere"

132
General Comments / Re: Injustice of the Republican Tax bill
« on: January 11, 2019, 01:12:18 PM »
Quote
Because that ship sailed 50 years ago?
Sure, but TheDaemon thought that the presentation was coherent and presumably sincere...

133
General Comments / Re: Injustice of the Republican Tax bill
« on: January 11, 2019, 11:09:59 AM »
Quote
In 2006 [the democrats] all voted to construct a physical barrier...
Yes - 700 miles, in addition to funding for other immigration issues, as a compromise with Republicans.  They did NOT agree to build a several thousand mile long concrete barrier along the length of the border.
Quote
Now its more important than ever to secure our border... here's why:
  • Illegal drugs
  • Vulnerable populations
  • Dangerous criminals
  • Martians
Why do we need a wall?  Scary, frightening words!!! Boogadaboogadaboogada!

Are there more illegal drugs crossing through the desert today than in previous years?  Is the increase significant?  What is the ratio of quantities crossing at formal ports of entry vs those through an unprotected border area? We know that the vast majority of drugs cross at ports of entry, so building walls in the middle of nowhere is simply not going to affect the majority of smuggled drugs anyway, even assuming the wall would be successful at reducing the minority of drugs being transported elsewhere.

Are there more or fewer vulnerable populations today as opposed to previous years?  What is the trend?  Again, we know that there are far fewer people crossing the border informally today than in years past, and the trend has been one of consistently falling numbers for years.

Similarly with dangerous criminals.  I would argue the same even holds for Martians.

Question: why is it seemingly necessary to be dishonest when presenting one's position to the public?

134
General Comments / Re: Injustice of the Republican Tax bill
« on: January 09, 2019, 06:31:16 AM »
Quote
by essentially encouraging illegal entry into the United States.
This talking point has little basis in reality - the United States, as of today, is seen throughout the world as being the most discouraging first world country for refugees. That they still make the attempt is a testament more to the desperation of the refugees rather than some misguided idea that the USA has open borders.

135
General Comments / Re: Injustice of the Republican Tax bill
« on: January 08, 2019, 07:44:03 PM »
Quote
build a wall across Canada 
Technically, I think you would need a complete dome...
Quote

Because, in my view, people are refusing to consider any effective solutions.
That may be because you don't listen to what Democrats are actually proposing...

136
General Comments / Re: Injustice of the Republican Tax bill
« on: January 08, 2019, 12:00:14 PM »
Define failure.  People already cross the border where there are physical barriers in place.

137
General Comments / Re: Injustice of the Republican Tax bill
« on: January 08, 2019, 10:19:41 AM »
It's a chain link fence topped with barbed wire.  Unless policed actively, anybody with a big blanket, a ladder and rope can get over it.  And any pickup truck with a winch or person with bolt cutters can get through it.

138
General Comments / Re: Injustice of the Republican Tax bill
« on: January 08, 2019, 06:31:01 AM »
Well, a 13-foot fence is scalable by moderately agile teenagers and adults, and can be torn down using motorized vehicles, whereas a wall is made of concrete, always, unless it's not; is beautiful, and is completely impregnable (unless you have a ladder and a rope).  It can also have see-through - in fact, that's an absolute requirement, I believe.

139
General Comments / Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
« on: January 07, 2019, 10:59:10 AM »
Crunch believes Ocasio-Cortez is a member of the media, it would seem...

140
General Comments / Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
« on: January 06, 2019, 07:51:35 AM »
No, what we are talking about is your claim of misleading or false reporting by CNN - and clearly, Pelosi paraphrased Reagan pretty accurately, and CNN accurately reported on her speech. 

Sure, you can suggest that, in a straight-up reporting piece, CNN should have given a history lesson on the 1980s and the 2010s, on Reagan's deteriorating health, on the possibility that the address was written by Reagan's team and probably not by the man himself, or that Reagan should no longer be revered as he has been by conservatives for the past 40 years, but now you are getting out of the realm of reporting and into the realm of analysis and even punditry.

CNN has a slew of opinion and editorial writers whose responsibility is to deconstruct such speeches, and yes, on CNN they skew anti-Trump, but those are clearly labelled as opinion pieces.

141
General Comments / Re: Misleading or false claims by the media
« on: January 05, 2019, 05:07:34 PM »
Are you suggesting that CNN did not accurately report Pelosi's actually statement?  Or are you taking exception with them for not fact checking her rhetoric?

If the latter, well, in Reagan's farewell address he said the following (my bold):
Quote
But in my mind it was a tall, proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, windswept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace; a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here. That's how I saw it, and see it still.
Nothing there about having the proper paperwork and the pre-approval of the current administration.  Disagree with Reagan's sentiment or not, but it is unlikely that, in that address, he was talking exclusively about legal immigrants.

I suppose you can disagree with what Reagan's words actually meant, or what he was possibly leaving unstated, but to take this as an unequivocal example of a misleading claim by CNN?  Not really.  At best you can say there is ambiguity, but a straight reading of what CNN reported shows them to have been pretty spot-on, here.

142
General Comments / Re: Trump is doing some things I like
« on: December 20, 2018, 09:20:20 PM »
The question, though, is whether this, with the likely government shutdown and with the latest Afghanistan announcement, will be enough to keep the Mueller headlines at bay?

143
General Comments / Re: here comes the next ice age
« on: December 19, 2018, 02:24:56 PM »
Quote
In what way is it a strawman that an environmental treaty should be beneficial to the environment? 
And these words have nothing to do with the post you are responding to, either. Seriously, read the actual words.  Nowhere did I state or suggest anything concerning whether "an environmental treaty should be beneficial". I simply pointed out that you can't get from "critical" to "most important", and you especially can't get to your implied "exclusively important", so the rest of your argument is without support.

144
General Comments / Re: here comes the next ice age
« on: December 19, 2018, 10:46:56 AM »
Quote
The line of argument is that if the environment is critical - and therefore the most important consideration
This is a non sequitur.  I expect this is a strawman that you have internalized so deeply that you are not even aware of it.

145
General Comments / Re: Abuses of Power
« on: December 19, 2018, 10:44:43 AM »
Quote
So you think the violations of privacy without probable cause that have occurred and are ongoing are acceptable?
a) Look at what I wrote - nothing I wrote presumes violations of probable cause, unless you are suggesting that witness statements somehow violate other defendants' probable cause rights.
b) Do you have evidence of these violations? 

146
General Comments / Re: here comes the next ice age
« on: December 19, 2018, 07:19:03 AM »
Ignoring? No.  What you have referenced has nothing to do with what was being discussed, with the exception that another forcing, in this case, changing the albedo of large areas by increasing vegetative cover and thereby increasing atmospheric temperature.

As discussed - long term increases in atmospheric temperature would lead to higher humidity.

147
General Comments / Re: Abuses of Power
« on: December 19, 2018, 07:05:40 AM »
"Wut?"

Try to figure it out, Crunch.  I know it means reading several posts for their content, you know, the words actually written, but with time and patience (and maybe a little help) I'm confident you can do it - I believe in you!

148
General Comments / Re: Russia and US politics
« on: December 18, 2018, 09:47:24 PM »
More on the dastardly Clinton Foundation and its illegal activities:

https://edition.cnn.com/2018/12/18/politics/trump-foundation-dissolve/index.html
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/politics-trump-foundation-dissolution-ny-1.4950304
Quote
U.S. President Donald Trump's namesake charitable foundation has agreed to dissolve following a lawsuit by New York's attorney general claiming Trump misused the foundation to advance his 2016 presidential campaign and his businesses, the state attorney general announced Tuesday.

Barbara Underwood said the Trump Foundation's assets will be distributed to charities that will be vetted by her office. The deal must still be approved by a state judge.

"Our petition detailed a shocking pattern of illegality involving the Trump Foundation, including unlawful co-ordination with the Trump presidential campaign, repeated and wilful self-dealing, and much more," Underwood said in a statement.
Ummm... oops, my bad.

149
General Comments / Re: endian ideas
« on: December 18, 2018, 09:32:32 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by TheDeamon:
I think studies found it doesn't make much of meaningful difference
Actually, studies have not found that, at all.

https://www.businessinsider.com/flushing-toilet-seat-up-sprays-water-germs-2016-3
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4666014/
Quote
Experimental work has clearly shown that droplet nuclei toilet plume aerosols are capable of entraining microorganisms as large as bacteria (Barker and Jones 2005), can migrate well away from the toilet (Jessen 1955; Darlow and Bale 1959; Barker and Jones 2005), and can remain viable for extended periods while airborne (Jessen 1955; Gerba et al. 1975; Barker and Jones 2005). Furthermore, sequential flushes following an initial toilet contamination continue to produce bioaerosols (Barker and Jones 2005; Darlow and Bale 1959; Yahya et al. 1992). Viruses may be particularly difficult to clear from the toilet; Yahya et al. (1992) found that viral bioaerosols were still being produced even after seven flushes after contamination.

150
General Comments / Re: here comes the next ice age
« on: December 18, 2018, 07:26:52 PM »
Not the water vapor argument again... people, just read the literature - you don't need to guess.  Extra water added to the atmosphere will be precipitated out over a period of one to two weeks - not long enough to cause any significant warming. 

Why? Because the amount of water vapor the atmosphere can hold is a function of the heat in the atmosphere.  If you don't first warm the atmosphere, adding water vapor just creates rain and snow.

Now, if you do increase the heat in the atmosphere (say, by increasing the levels of CO2) then the atmosphere will maintain higher levels of water vapor, and that increased amount of water vapor will stay around long enough to itself increase the heat trapped in the atmosphere.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 13