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 - D.W.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 50
General Comments / Re: Ukraine
« on: October 01, 2019, 11:17:57 AM »
All this "Deep State" stuff keeps getting more and more bemusing as it goes on.  As if it requires some grand conspiracy that the entire apparatus of government is allergic to Trump's personality, statements/tweets, and actions.  It requires no coordination or planning.  Huge swaths of the world want this embarrassment to end.

Didn't follow all the logic, but one report on this mentioned that this act/process was raising hell with a lot of peoples' security clearance.  They made it sound like it was a black mark by default that required affected parties to take measures to 'clear their names'.  The interview didn't dig very deep on this point though.

General Comments / Re: Ukraine
« on: September 30, 2019, 09:12:37 AM »
The second one sounds like what Trump is being accused of.  The first though?  That sounds like it would tie our hands in pretty much all dealings with foreign powers...

Putting pressure on a foreign leader is not at issue.  Doing so for your personal gain rather than national interest, is.

I'm no Biden fan.  Maybe he did do just that, but all the timeline info I've seen so far makes that seem unlikely.  But... here we have his son, in the right place at the right time to make money.  Everything (well, one small thing) I think is wrong with our government.  I'd feel a lot better about the investigation into such nepotism / corruption if it wasn't by a man who gives all appearances of trying to trump those who went before him on that front.   ::)

General Comments / Re: BoJo Boffo or Bozo?
« on: September 25, 2019, 07:34:27 PM »
In all politics I think the base line is a large block of people content with doing nothing.  :)  You gotta keep on your toes when everyone wants to do "something".

General Comments / Re: Just making life easier for climate deniers
« on: September 25, 2019, 01:31:11 PM »
I get the appeal of this idea, you want to say "we're all in it together," but that's only true on the environmental issue - not the economic one.
And THIS is the real issue worth discussing.  Because we are not all in it together on the economic issue, it’s improbable if not impossible to be in it together on the environmental one.  Therefor finger pointing at the “real problem” isn’t all that useful. 
My approach has always been, most efficient producers first, harsh penalties on non-efficient producers, and agreeing on how to deliver the products of the production in a manner that obviates the need for non-efficient production
I just don’t know how this could be implemented in practice.  I mean, I suppose the easy answer is use force.  Either economic or military.  There is NO persuasive argument that is built around, “Accept a lower standard of living and/or less economic stability than us because you are incapable of achieving the standards we have set.”  All that also assumes that WE are already doing all we can (or at least could reasonably be expected to persuade our people to do).

There are 2 separate goals here, and unfortunately only one of the tribes could meet both goals, while the second can beat the first on one goal only by destroying the second goal.
Think you nailed it here.  It suggests that one of the tribes is perfectly fine as is, which I don’t agree with, but the rest of it sums things up nicely.

  I mean really, if they honestly believe we have 10 years till death what are they holding back for?
I will only address this to say, that no rational person believes this, as you have stated it.  SOME (mostly) rational people believe that we may reach a point of no return within that time frame, such that we cannot un-fork the damage we are doing.  I’m an optimist as far as our ability to innovate under pressure.  I’m ALSO in an area with abundant clean water unlikely to suffer the brunt of negative effects for a long time…  So there’s that.  Also in architecture, so if whole coastal cities DO sink… that’s more work for us! 

Not sure how you equate that to abortion, but yes.  The obvious is stated, we see a difference.

General Comments / Re: Just making life easier for climate deniers
« on: September 25, 2019, 12:01:30 PM »
All analogies are terrible, the more complete they get the less useful they are as a shorthand to the larger issue.  :P

If we’re poking holes in each other’s ships…  In yours, there IS no other island.  It’s a fantasy being sold to us by both sides ship building industries.  For now, floating along in your own ship is pretty nice.  Less crowded, less dirty and you have more freedom.  But eventually you need to stop back at Impoverished Danger Island to restock. 

The only ‘real solution’ is to freely give the technology and methods used by the US to the Chinese.  To work together to make the island less dangerous and decide exactly how many ships we need, of if maybe we should be using that lumber to build better shelters and ways to make the place less dangerous and in general a good place to live.

Converting THAT solution back to the real world contains seemingly endless complications.  None of which are possible with a {my country}-First policy and seeing world economies as a competition you are either winning or losing.  I certainly don’t have the answers on that front.  Or rather, I’ve got the answer, but as my math teachers use to bemoan, I cannot show my work.

But let’s go with another one. 
There are two tribes living in a network of natural caves.  The weather outside is deadly cold.  Neither tribe can reach the other without braving the cold.  One tribe has access to material that burns more cleanly producing A LOT of heat, but little smoke.  They keep their portion of the cave very warm and comfortable.  The other tribe has access only to material that burns less cleanly.  It produces A LOT of smoke but only enough heat to make things tolerable, but not as comfortable as the other tribe.

The problem is this cave network has small gaps allowing the smoke to diffuse and even out between both tribes.  Unable to seal off the smoke coming in from their neighbor what are the cleaner burners to do?  They cannot force their neighbors to stop creating smoke unless they are willing to brave the cold, go around and enter the mountain from the other side.  The travel would likely kill many and unless they were willing to hand over some of their cleaner fuel the only other option is war. 

When environmentalists suggest that WE (the cleaner burning tribe, that granted is far from actually being “clean” still) could cut burn a bit less material and produce even LESS smoke, while looking for even CLEANER methods to keep comfortable.  Sure, the neighbors are the far more significant problem, but without offering them aid, or going to war, you do what is within your power to reduce the smoke that threatens your tribe. 
Just as contrived

Do you really believe we are terraforming the planet and this is not a natural cycle like all the previous ones?
Yes.  Though the way I’d use the term implies a process undertaken for a desired result.  What we are doing is a side effect.  So… also no?  :P  I’ve also said many times on this forum that one of the thing that keeps me from being more alarmist about the whole thing is that I believe we need to know how to tip the scales in both directions.  Today’s serious problem may be tomorrow’s solution.  Though by tomorrow I mean a depressingly long time from now and likely on another spinning ball of dirt than this one. 

As for Obama’s beach front property, he’s wealthy.  Most with money get what they want right now.  Even if he KNEW that house would slide into the ocean in 15 years I doubt that would matter.  Your point is bull*censored* to distract the rubes while the rich do what they’ve always done.  Splurge on instant gratification.

General Comments / Re: Ukraine
« on: September 25, 2019, 01:11:39 AM »
And if they are indeed for sale, why wouldn't one think that is probably still the case and worth offering or withholding cash to get what YOU want as well?  :P

I think Trump is still useful for draining the swamp.  Just like he told us he was.  Follow the man.  Pay attention to what he does.  Let him show you the way.  I think what he rakes up could be enlightening.  ;)

General Comments / Re: Ukraine
« on: September 24, 2019, 11:34:42 PM »
(note: calls aren't "transcribed")
Is there a more proper term for this process?

Or are you suggesting that recordings to/from the White House are not converted into text?

General Comments / Re: Just making life easier for climate deniers
« on: September 24, 2019, 11:26:05 PM »
So there "should be a debate" provided that it starts by assuming the reality of one side?
As much as I love the many worlds theory, there's not much room for it in politics.

I agree there should be a debate, it should be about what solutions are real and can be accomplished, the costs of those solutions and how to minimize them.
Bingo.  And to be honest, I'm not interested in finger pointing.  But trying to avoid this, does tie the world's hands in working towards real solutions. 

not remotely understanding that "our sacrifice" will destroy the planet even faster as dirty plants proliferate in the third world.
Please expand.  I think you may be onto something here.  Granted you cannot sway the zealots, but there ARE people concerned about our future home who are willing to listen.

Force China to open their markets, to products produced in cleaner western plants.
This doesn't seem contradictory to your earlier statement about "real" solutions?

The group that correctly identifies that environmental laws and especially international laws are an environmental hoax is what's large.
Just to be clear, it's a "hoax" because we refuse to quit firing our hand gun into the hull of our slowly sinking ship because the crew refuses to do anything about that nut with the shotgun blasting dinner plate sized holes at the other end of the ship?  That makes it a "hoax"?

General Comments / Re: Ukraine
« on: September 24, 2019, 04:26:26 PM »
The point is to short circuit the race to the bottom and start holding everyone to SOME standard.  Even if it's one that no one is happy with.  We start enforcing laws even when, or especially when, it's not politically expedient to do so.  When we protect or defend the "chosen ones" of 'our team' everyone loses. 

General Comments / Re: Ukraine
« on: September 24, 2019, 03:38:45 PM »
But at the same time the Biden story has been known for a while. Plenty of time to get the details behind it if you desired to. Instead we just see see Trump and his allies spreading rumors instead of doing actual investigating.
Sadly, neither side cares until it is ALSO politically useful.   :'(

Therefor the timeline is useless as an indicator of whether or not there is any there there.

General Comments / Re: Just making life easier for climate deniers
« on: September 24, 2019, 03:04:19 PM »
Just saw a headline, in case it wasn't obvious the cynicism expressed by Seriati and Crunch has some basis.

"Bully commentary born of anger": Fox News host Laura Ingraham mocks 16-year-old girl with autism

General Comments / Re: Just making life easier for climate deniers
« on: September 24, 2019, 03:00:07 PM »
OK... so why not pour a significant amount into education and publicly fund/subsidize research then?  If we're going to rely on a magic bullet solution, let's at least do some test firing.  To be clear.  I'm in the same camp.  I think we'll innovate our way out of this cluster-F.  I however think we need to buy more time, and try to cultivate a better... environment, for that type of innovation.  At a minimum we should maintain current efforts to show some G.D. restraint. 

General Comments / Re: Just making life easier for climate deniers
« on: September 24, 2019, 02:21:25 PM »
Doing that to any child is sick and you shouldn’t be defending it.
Interesting that both sides agree on this point.   ;D

General Comments / Re: Just making life easier for climate deniers
« on: September 24, 2019, 01:54:41 PM »
Indeed.  Which makes the current trends of demonizing socialism, globalism and immigration so alarming.  Aren't these the very tools most likely to achieve fixes to the engineering problems?  How do you convince anyone, let alone the younger generations, that you have alternative solutions?

The current counter seems to be, "The whole topic is BS and we can ignore it." or "Trust the free market" which results in the exact engineering problem we (some of us?) are diagnosing.  After all, in the US at least, the current climate denier position of the administration is paired with a deregulating agenda.  That is not conducive to debate.  In fact it seems to many to be the flip side of the 'cliff' alarmists.  These are the people looking for one last huge cash grab before the party is over.

I get that these are complicated topics that the very young are not equipped to deal with.  Hell, most adults, myself included, are hard pressed to follow decent arguments in this tact.  Fortunately for The Green Side, you almost never encounter them...

General Comments / Re: Just making life easier for climate deniers
« on: September 24, 2019, 01:24:49 PM »
Or it could be about wanting to not pay the debts of reckless parents running up a huge tab.  Pleading for them to stop and act responsibly.  Even children can grasp the concepts of trashing a place for instant gratification. 

Some of them learn why that's a terrible plan.

General Comments / Re: Just making life easier for climate deniers
« on: September 24, 2019, 01:16:14 PM »
There isn't a debate though.  :) 
There is the data, and then propaganda.  The debate amounts to emotional manipulation.  (with a sprinkling of outright lies) 

There SHOULD BE a debate.  It should center around what (if any) sacrifices we are willing to make to our lifestyle given the quantifiable cost of that lifestyle; and what (if any) responsibility those in more developed countries have to those in less developed countries?  Do those who crossed benchmarks first somehow have the right to maintain everything and deny the same benefits to other late comers?  Do those causing more harm have a duty to solve the problem and be burdened with more of the cost of doing so?  Those are debates.

Instead we've got one group acting more alarmist than most (apparently 70%?) find rational, and another large group insisting that the whole thing is a hoax.  Debate requires a shared understanding of reality.  THEN you can begin to address the issue (or not) as seems appropriate (or... ick... cost effective).

General Comments / Re: Just making life easier for climate deniers
« on: September 24, 2019, 12:58:29 PM »
Which differentiates them from the rest of humanity... how exactly? 

Con:  they don't know who not to trust yet, and have underdeveloped "critical thinking skills".
Pro:  They've not yet decided they know everything they need to know about a subject and reject new info that doesn't jive with their current world view.

I'm not going to say I want young kids calling the shots for all of us, but I'm skeptical they are any more of a threat than the older power brokers willing to sacrifice those kids and those in the middle to make themselves comfortable and to retain power.  :)

General Comments / Re: Just making life easier for climate deniers
« on: September 24, 2019, 12:15:03 PM »
Meaning there isn't a question for me.  It IS predatory.  It is a calculated move to use this kid, and to focus media attention on the younger generation and their protests / walk outs. 

Now, I think those kids are being genuine and come to their conclusions honestly (and correctly), but the political/media machine, is 'using them'.  I expect many of these kids understand this, and to use an old timer phrase, "aren't looking a gift horse in the mouth".

General Comments / Re: Just making life easier for climate deniers
« on: September 24, 2019, 11:51:15 AM »
This is a difficult question for me: whether inclusivity here is celebatory or predatory.
It's a little inspiring/hopeful that you can still question this.  I think part of why I like listening to the kids talk is I can still entertain such questions.  (An aside, not calling you a kid Fenring)  :P

General Comments / Re: Just making life easier for climate deniers
« on: September 24, 2019, 11:27:06 AM »
Thanks for clarifying.  Sadly it seems that anymore we need to spell all this out.  As you can see, simply stating data points has potential to be leveraged for emotional gains in both directions.  That's how the game is played now (or perhaps always was). 

Do facts only matter when they are advantageous to a position?  I like to think that's not the case. 

I had to do a quick 30 second google search (rather than assume Crunch is a monster) when I read his statement. 

The logical approach seems to have fallen flat.  Now an emotional plea is under way.  While it's convenient to suggest that using kids is just a 'tactic', they are the ones who's future is most at risk so brushing off their opinion seems insincere to me.  I get the rejection by climate deniers to fall into the trap of being painted as evil.  But what other leavers are present to shift behavior?  Divine dictates of environmental stewardship?  The pope isn't having a lot of luck on that front last I checked. 

I don't think shame will do the trick, but I can't blame them for giving it a shot.

General Comments / Re: Just making life easier for climate deniers
« on: September 24, 2019, 10:41:11 AM »
Calling teenage girls mentally ill and autistic because you don't like what she is saying is sick. Seriously sick.
Are you claiming that is a false statement?  Or just criticizing him bringing it up in relation to her politics?

General Comments / Re: Just making life easier for climate deniers
« on: September 24, 2019, 10:34:35 AM »
But if third-hand rumor is sufficient to impeach a president then I find this reasonable.
I get that this is your brand of snark; but even joking that absurdity justifies absurdity is how we ended up where we are in today's politics.

As for Greta Thunberg, the only reason I'm not freaked out is my love of science fiction.  I've been reading about teraformed planets since I was her age.  The idea that we cannot one day unfork this planet is as ridiculous as those claiming the damage we are doing to the environment is a hoax. 

The problem with that is another fairly consistent trope in that same genre of stories, is us not pulling our heads out of our rumps until after the type of catastrophic events being predicted right now.  Why not try to fix our problems at the height of global potential rather than waiting until we are in the middle of some mad-max scenario trying to reclaim lost potential while struggling to survive?

It's not going to be some flashy Day After Tomorrow action sequence.  It's going to be statistically abnormal weather events and gradual coastal erosion and food shortages funneling people to our boarders.  Boarders, more and more want closed off to just this type of immigrant.  It's going to lead to more and more sanctions against those deemed the worst offenders further isolating / antagonizing them.  But funny thing about those of us in those offending countries.  We've got huge economic (and military) power to throw around.  That can't end well...

Our ability to manipulate our environment is already too great to be anything but a global society to at least some extent.  Everyone being {my country}-First, means we all lose.  I mean, who really wants to sit on rain-forest land and 'protect it for the good of all' at the cost of economic opportunity for their own people and a better ability to feed themselves without relying on 'hand outs' from the rest of the world eroding your sovereignty?  Who's going to let other countries tell you that you cannot provide power at the levels and geographic coverage your people demand to be part of the modern world? 

This only works with either incredible sacrifices, incredible innovation and spending, OR widespread global and population collapse. 

I kinda like the middle one, while it's still on the table.

General Comments / Re: Just making life easier for climate deniers
« on: September 23, 2019, 11:38:29 PM »
As a lover of context, did you already look at the survey? 

Are we talking climate change global uninhabitable?  I mean, if you accidentally lumped in religious prophesied doom, or those who believe we are close to a nuclear war within a decade that skews the numbers a bit.  ;)

Not, "take action within 10-15 years" but "we've only got 10-15 years before it IS uninhabitable"? 

I know statistics are a well of despair, but I find 29% unbelievable.  I suppose given a small enough selection set in a radical population, you could find 29% who would SAY this, but even there finding that many who believe it seems a stretch.

But... sometimes reality is depressing and the population lets ya down.

General Comments / Re: Ukraine
« on: September 23, 2019, 09:28:18 PM »
Nuke em both from orbit.  It's the only way to be sure.

General Comments / Re: I have no obligation to be honest
« on: September 23, 2019, 04:05:11 PM »
Way to prove rightleft22's point.  :P
Welcome to the quantum age!  Information age is caveman stuff now.

General Comments / Re: I have no obligation to be honest
« on: September 23, 2019, 11:45:45 AM »
Read as:  D.W. agrees with this
Not much to LIKE about it.  :P

General Comments / Re: I have no obligation to be honest
« on: September 23, 2019, 09:10:12 AM »
I'd doubt it.  Most of the group you are referring to either don't agree it's a significant issue that he left off "most of you" in that statement; OR (the more significant portion) believe it was well worth these bumps. 

That this is trotted out as some grievous deception told to the public to rob them of their doctors reads as, "Wow, if that's their main gripe I think they are bigger fans of the guy than us!"

General Comments / Re: Is it Still DUI if the Horse is Sober?
« on: September 19, 2019, 04:00:06 PM »
And it keeps getting funnier, every single time I see it!

Presidents are allowed to change their mind.  They are allowed to react to new events.  I'm getting sick of both sides trying to score points by illustrating when this happens as if it's some horrible sin.

Attack the new position if you want.  Hell you can even question the sincerity of the original claim if you want.  Crying foul when it happens seems pretty ridiculous to me.

Trump lies with damn near every breath.  You don't need to redefine what a lie is in order to trip him up on one.   ::)

General Comments / Re: Impeaching Kavanaugh
« on: September 18, 2019, 01:19:44 PM »
Oh, I'm not surprised in the least.  I don't even think they necessarily answered 'wrong'.  I'm just pointing out that when being coached, your answers have the side effect of projecting guilt, or at least obfuscation. 

Direct answers with zero 'wiggle room' in them are the opposite of 'lawyer speak'.

Listen to someone like Hillary speak for any extended period of time.  She's trained herself to be always on in terms of 'lawyer speak'.  I think that is a clear detriment to her, hard to pin down, likability or trustworthiness.

General Comments / Re: Impeaching Kavanaugh
« on: September 18, 2019, 12:46:46 PM »
Pretty selective on your part when they also add in "that if Brett did that, it would have been grossly out of character for him to have done so."
Why would I focus on this?  It's ALSO nonsense talk.  "I mean, I'm not saying it DIDN'T happen, but wow was it way out of character, I'm kinda surprised it happened!  I mean, being intoxicated changes some people... but WOW!"

This type of wording is what made Ancient Aliens hilarious to watch.  It's less entertaining in the headlines as it relates to people in power, and possible sexual misconduct.

Now, the proper retort to my completely unfair characterization is.  "They were also partying and it was a hell of a long time ago D.W.!  Seems plausible to me that they really don't remember at all!" 

I know I had friends who would get blackout drunk and not remember vomiting into a dresser drawer last night or no clue why they decided the bath tub looked like a comfortable place to sleep...  Asking them decades later and getting, "I do not recall" seems reasonable.  (if the stories others told them about the stupid *censored* they got up to didn't hang around forever that is)   I can even say those were things "not in their character" and mean it.  They did those things, but they were notable because of how abnormal they were.

Now with something more serious?  I don't know how that impacts things.  All I'm saying is the language we choose, says a lot more than the sum of those words.

I can't keep up.  Is that a lie, a misstatement, fake news, flip-flop or evolving position or just a witch hunt?

So many options.  Maybe all of the above?  This new quantum-stuff makes forming opinions about reality a dicey proposition. 

General Comments / Re: Impeaching Kavanaugh
« on: September 18, 2019, 09:25:03 AM »
Not that I want to keep dragging this back up over and over again like Crunch does (seriously, let it go man)  :P  Phrases like “I have zero recollection.” strike a lot of people as legal speak for, "Yep! but forgetting isn't perjury!  Just say "It didn't happen in my presence."  Or "that claim is false" FFS.

From a legal stand point I get it, and not being forced to incriminate yourself is a good thing too, but don't whine when all the world assumes you did it.  It's hard not to look at our system at times as a high stakes game show of gotcha, rather than a "justice system".  It should be little shock to anyone we also focus so intently on the public trial of appearances.

But seriously Crunch, leave the poor SCJ alone.  Hasn't he been through enough?  :)

General Comments / Re: Dem debates
« on: September 16, 2019, 01:28:56 AM »
Does anyone realistically think this could win a national election?
Against Trump?  Ya.  I think Trump correctly diagnosed (or got lucky?) that the nation was looking for anything but the same-ol'-same-ol'.  Sanders would fit right into that niche as well.  And do so by scapegoating the super wealthy instead of scapegoating the super marginalized / desperate. 

I think he would have absolutely won last go round, and has a good shot this time.  Though I think the better play would be for two of the front runners to share a ticket.  (and announce that sooner rather than later)

General Comments / Re: NRA as domestic terrorists
« on: September 14, 2019, 09:29:49 PM »
I could try and hypothetical this out... but as I don't agree with the position, is that worthwhile to anyone here?  While I know a few people in the "guns-bad!  stop them all!  NRA EVIL!" crowd, I'm not one of them.

I only think the NRA is a greedy industry lobby. 

Are either of you arguing that people DON'T feel that way?  Even if some of their arguments may have as many holes as paper silhouettes in a gun rage trash bin.  :P

The NRA enables the power fantasy of present and would be gun owners.  I find it dumb, but others find it to be a huge part of the problem surrounding gun violence.  I would shed no tears if the NRA vanished tomorrow, but we're an Amendment and multiple landmark cases too deep to call them terrorists with credibility as I see it.  I want them gone the same way I want big money pharam or tobacco or oil away from our politicians.  /shrug 

Though... chemical attack terrorists!  Bio terrorists or climate-terrorists labels can solve ALL our problems!  Hold up, I'm reconsidering.     ;D

General Comments / Re: NRA as domestic terrorists
« on: September 14, 2019, 06:14:19 PM »
Not my argument to make, as I find the accusation a silly one.

My guess?  By rigorous attempts to block any measures some people feel could stop or reduce the number of these attacks. 

As I see them as just another industry lobby I understand the desire to hold them accountable.  I would draw the parallels with the pharmaceutical companies being sued over the opioid crisis, rather than providing material support for terrorism. 

General Comments / Re: Dem debates
« on: September 13, 2019, 10:09:55 PM »
Umm, when "bleeding from the eye" is a possible side effect, WTF are you treating?   :o

I'm normally pretty dismissive of the, "is so and so healthy / young enough to run this country?" speculation but, yikes! 

I mean, that one bond villain kinda made it look creepy/intimidating, but it's pretty gross.

General Comments / Re: Dem debates
« on: September 13, 2019, 08:36:46 PM »
I was reading other stuff while I had it on so missed anything to do with his teeth.  First I heard of the eye bleeding? 

But even just focusing on what he said, it was underwhelming. 

All good points.  Probably just part of me being angry a trashy celebrity was elected over politicians who try not to act like that in public. 

General Comments / Re: Dem debates
« on: September 13, 2019, 05:49:34 PM »
True, the only equivalent is just ignoring candidates into oblivion. 

General Comments / Re: Dem debates
« on: September 13, 2019, 10:37:45 AM »
Was there a single word about the economy? I didn’t hear one thing about it. Weird.
Not hardly enough.  Touched trade I guess.  But no policy/leadership.

Nothing on infrastructure either?  WTF.  Trump's inaction on this one should be a big deal.  Maybe they're afraid they'd remind him about it and he'd pounce to work on it before the election?  And the political loss is somehow more important than him doing something good for the country?  I, just don't know why they'd avoid that.

Maybe they just all agree, and no division means no sparks and that's not sexy tv...

Glad it's not just me on the "OMG they're not gonna call on me, are they?!" look I kept seeing on Booker's face.   :D

General Comments / Re: Koch foods should be held to account
« on: September 13, 2019, 10:33:26 AM »
Fair or lawful? 
Why argue about fairness when what is really at issue is lawmaking, enforcement and trade policy?

and as you describe below you seem to be unaware of a inconsistency in your thoughts
More accurate to say that I'm not as familiar with the assault allegations.  Which, I suppose proves some points about the omnipresence of negative news against Trump in comparison.

If Rock Star finds a groupie in his dressing room, grabs her by the item and has consensual sex with her, that parses differently from Trump finding a woman in an area where she was seeking him out, grabs her by the item and has consensual sex with her in what way?

What if the groupie really did like the Rock Star but hated the way they were treated and only had sex because they were afraid to fight back, or because they believed it would start a relationship?
"Fight back" implies a lot.  It could range from standing up for themselves to physically fending off sexual assault...  Cannot answer that part.  As to the last part.  That's consensual.  Unless you want to dive down a rabbit hole of delusional behavior somehow nullifying consent?  None of this tact makes much sense to me as it relates to this discussion.

Why if Bill Clinton is accused of an assault do you respond as if it it were a consensual situation?
Again, deflection because I don't recall the specifics of those.  I wasn't watching the soap opera that was politics as closely then.  Also... it wasn't him on tape talking about it. 

I do assume they both (Bill/Trump) exploit their fame / power to have sex with people (other than their wives).  Did they cross lines?  Seems plausible.  Assault?  IDK, maybe they are above the law and can disappear these problems effectively.

I'm not giving Bill a pass and assuming it's all lies against him.  I just didn't follow his alleged misdeeds as closely as I do Trump's.  I've also said I don't think Trump's statement was a confession of actual rape, only that what he described in a manner that (to me) seemed to indicate he thought it was pretty awesome, that he was able to.  And doing so in a manner that heavily implied he knows this because he's done it before, and possibly often.  HE said that.  Not someone claiming he said it, or did it.  That is a big distinction to me. 

The creepy part about Trump's role in it was his seeming belief that all women are groupies.
Bingo.  A groupie is someone who wants to get close to their idol / powerful target for affection or attention.  You don't see how it changes things when one assumes ALL these women he comes into contact with want him to do these things?  That assuming consent or entitlement is dangerous and disgusting? 

I'm not about to dive into defending Bill's sexual history.  Maybe I should read back on the assault allegations against him.  Granted, he's no longer president...  And I think his wife's aspirations in that regard have been sufficiently derailed that he can be relegated to the history books.  Unless scandals / charges sweep him back into the spotlight...

General Comments / Re: Dem debates
« on: September 12, 2019, 11:03:03 PM »
So I get that he's the DNC fave... but Biden doesn't perform well in debates, at all.   :-\

As much as I love Sanders, he seems fueled on 100% outrage.  I'd like to see some more calm responses from him than calls to urgency to fight the evils of the status quo.  :P

Warren did pretty well I thought.  And a lot of the peanut gallery did as well or better than expected, given the deck stacked against them in the way these things are structured. 

Harris I think could have done better.  Booker did well but looked like a deer in headlights until he started to answer.  Which, he then did quite well. 

I liked a lot of what Yang had to say but don't think I can get past that bonkers game he made out of his opening statement. 

I liked that the non-front runners are mostly green enough to actually answer questions posed to them, rather than answering somewhat related questions that nobody asked about.  At least, more so than is standard...

If we are fortunate it won't ever happen again.
So... ummm opening comments of the debate tonight, Andrew Yang starts with turning things into a game show.   :o

there were literal stories of Clinton using his police escorts to bring him women and multiple stories of assaults.
I don't really care if a president cannot keep it in their pants as long as it's consensual and not assault.  What Trump was describing was assault. 

Arranging to have sex with groupies is unseemly and, unpresidential (at least the being obvious about it part) but it's not assault...  My views on sex is pretty wide open.  My views on being openly disrespectful to your family however is another thing and I do hold that against people.  Another very non-PC of me strike I held against Hillary.  Smacks of victim blaming on my part but letting your husband disrespect you like that irked me.  Accepting it, probably(?) out of political calculation for her own aspirations though makes me shiver a bit. 

That this president cheated on wives with new lovers, and later married one of them, (or was it 2?), I find tacky and a character flaw, but it's probably worth being compared against Bill.  Assault allegations or joking that you are able to (implying you just may have done so) is different.  At least to me.

But if one were inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt (I'm admittedly not) I could see someone coming away with the understanding that because he's rich/famous these women WANT him to do these things.  I heard it as, "I can do this and get away with it."  But I guess (if strain myself to the point of hurting something) I get how someone may take away that he's just describing them as his groupies.   If you see it that way, I guess there would be a double standard with Bill, for the most part, getting a pass.  It's probably a lot more superficial as well.  Bill was portrayed as charming / attractive.  Trump as a buffoon / gross.  That shouldn't matter, but probably did/does, quite a lot.

Granted, I think he would not have been president had a similar tape been released before his election.  Trump's 'brand' was an outrageous egomaniac.  Him saying this 'shocking thing' was... on brand.  It's simply not for anyone else who's perused the highest office before.  If we are fortunate it won't ever happen again. 

It has to be a literal confession that Trump, not only can do it (which pre-Weinstein was probably a factual truth, and may even still be a truth for a lot of celebrities), but does do it, or believes it's his right to do it.  I think Fen's point is that there's not enough context to demonstrate he does do it, it's in the context of criticizing/bragging about celebrity culture - which almost requires for the context that it's being acknowledged as as exceptional or not right.
Thanks I guess to both of you for demonstraiting the thought process that allows some to excuse this.  I didn't ever really understand it before.  That you can convince yourselfs that this was social comentary or criticisim of a sub-culture BY Trump is eye opening.  I had incorrectly assumed this was a head in the sand issue, not one there was a mental "out" available for anyone.  So, thanks for that.

It's the kinda answer I got into heated exchange with Pete way back when the SSM issue was constantly in the news where I got scolded for insisting a line of reasoning was BS / disingeuous.  So I'll just take it at face value.  It makes a lot more sense then the sheer volume of America that would choose to ignore/excuse the behavior.

So if you're options are A or B, go with C?  Inherent in what I was asking is the unstated assertion that what you are suggesting was never going to work.  Cheney didn't respond at all, and was (and still is) painted as some sort of primordial evil.
Maybe it wouldn't work.  But the retort I would have is, do you gain anything by attempting to fight back?  I would suggest he's only digging the whole deeper and ignoring it would be the better play.  Maybe I'm wrong.  Maybe Bush Jr. and Cheney were wrong.  I suppose you could operate under the theory that "well THAT didn't work, let's try something else!"  /shrug

My grandma use to, on rare ocasion, say something "obviously" racist.  Not with any mallice really but just one of those, "Jesus grandma, you cannot say that!"  99.9% of the time, no issues.  I think Trump does the same thing, maybe a different percentage.  :P  It's not concious.  He just kinda soaks in some awful things and ocasionally lets some of it loose.  Does he hate ALL Jews or African Americans or Mexicans?  No (Well, maybe on the last one...)  But he does say some terrible *censored* that consensus has decided is no longer acceptable (if it ever was in "polite society") 

I get that a lot of people sling the Hitler thing around, but I don't recall Bush Jr. being painted with that brush.  Then again, maybe I just found the comparison stupid and dismissed it.  Possible. 

Honestly, to me, for someone with her background and the amount of baggage she carried the fact of her private servers was absolutely disqualifying.
  Between that and the DNC leaks coming out, let's just say I was pretty ashamed of the Democratic team last election. 

I still believe that Hillary is the only candidate who could have lost to Trump, and Trump the only candidate who could have lost to Hillary.

Well, I suppose to be fair I do believe he has sexually assaulted young women.  I find that entirely plausible and consistent with his public persona.  Now maybe he hasn't.  It could be he's so pathetic that this type of bragging is his way of compensating for his failing masculinity.

The context we are constantly being told to take into consideration, makes me lean towards the former rather than the latter probability. 

Is it the same as him saying he COULD shoot someone and get away with it?  Without context?  I suppose I could see that.  It could just be another fantasy of an inadequate man.  Hell, he may have enough money that he could have been speaking the literal truth on that one.   A supposition bolsters by my suspicion (I'd say "the fact that", but I'll leave that argument alone for now) he's gotten away with some heinous activities already. 

All that said, he's AFAIK not admitted to criminal assault.  Anyone who views that statement as such is dumb.  It is an indication that he believes he could do so and get away with it, that he may have done so, or that he wishes he had; and that it would make him appear more macho to his perceived audience when making such a statement.  Any of that makes him disgusting.

He most certainly bragged about his means/opportunity/desire to sexually assault women.  Anyone who sees it as an admission of guilt is reaching though.  He is, objectively, without morals when it comes to his treatment of women.  No coordinated media attack needed.  A large part of the country knew he was a cretin and excused it.  Maybe thousands and thousands were cheering as he did so.  :P

I guess the mistake I think you are making is the assumption that your interpretation is not what outrages (most?) people. 

It doesn't have to be a literal confession of sexual assault to be so outrageous as to have derailed most mere mortal's campaigns.   ::)

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 50