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 - Wayward Son

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 26
51
General Comments / Re: The Meuller Report
« on: June 19, 2019, 06:20:23 PM »
Didn't you read the junk they edited from the conversation?  Lots of "uh" and repeated words.  You may be used to hearing Trump speak, but most of us like clean sentences that get to the point and aren't stupid or redundant.

It if makes the text clearer, yes, edit out the useless words.  Of course, that does leave the person open to charges that he changed the meaning by doing so.  But you can always find out by reading the unredacted text.  So, again, did the edits change the meaning significantly?

52
General Comments / Re: Freedom Gas!
« on: June 19, 2019, 06:17:26 PM »
Well, when the Republicans plan is "deny until we hang ourselves," it really doesn't matter how badly the global warming crowd is doing, does it?   ;)

We'll do what we can until we get a better alternative.

(Besides, the plastic grocery bag bans are primarily for addressing the plastic crisis, not global warming, IIRC.)

53
General Comments / Re: AOC's latest
« on: June 19, 2019, 06:14:59 PM »
Yeah, yeah.  She would've eaten their bodies and sacrificed them to Satan, too.

Let's deal with what is actual, not "how it could've been worse if Hillary had won."  ::)

54
General Comments / Re: AOC's latest
« on: June 19, 2019, 06:09:20 PM »
Volume.  Lack of discrimination of who is sent there.  And a President that indicated that maybe not treating immigrants well might discourage them from coming in the first place.

55
General Comments / Re: The Meuller Report
« on: June 19, 2019, 04:14:17 PM »
How do the omitted parts change the thrust of the conversation?  Even with the “without having to give up any…um confidential information. so, uhm, if it’s the former, then you know,” the basic message seems to be the same to me:  tell us what they know.

56
General Comments / Re: AOC's latest
« on: June 19, 2019, 02:28:09 PM »
And isn't it fun how Republicans go and redefine terms (like "concentration camps"), then criticize Democrats for not using it the way they want them to?

I guess they are just the Humpty-Dumpty party.   ;D

57
The joke gets even better.

Not only are they waiting for a new government to approve the village, they are also awaiting plans and funding and even a concept.

Quote
The proposal put before the cabinet to found the new community includes no real steps toward its establishment. It’s mainly “administrative work,” which in Israeli speak means barely a single meeting around a plate of carbs. Numerous other expressions from the very creative “Israbluff” lexicon appear there in full force: “Formulating recommendations,” “examining a variety of aspects,” “submitting opinions,” “the government notes,” and so on and so forth.

There’s just one sentence at the end that reveals the deceit: “When the final government decision is made on the establishment of the community, and insofar as the location of the new town will be in the area of the community of Kela…” There it is. Indeed, no such final decision was made, and it’s unclear if after the sign’s installation such a community will ever be established, or will remain a celestial “Trump Heights” – a mythological town that exists only in the imagination.

It's a sign!  Literally, just a sign. :)

58
Just because Trump once owned the building at 666 Fifth Avenue, one shouldn't jump to conclusions... :)

59
General Comments / Re: Freedom Gas!
« on: June 18, 2019, 02:45:03 PM »
Remember, CO2 in the atmosphere doesn't just affect the climate.  It is also responsible for ocean acidification.  Add that to your economic calculations, too.

 ::)

Most of what's living in the oceans now lived in the oceans over a million years ago. They did just fine with 1700+ ppm co2 present in the atmosphere. It might take a bit for those older adaptations to resurface in some cases, but to assume they're never to be seen again is a bit silly IMO.

And what do you think fishing will be like while those without the old adaptations die off?  ::)

Check out how well it worked out 252 million years ago.

60
General Comments / Re: Freedom Gas!
« on: June 18, 2019, 01:54:49 PM »
Remember, CO2 in the atmosphere doesn't just affect the climate.  It is also responsible for ocean acidification.  Add that to your economic calculations, too.

61
General Comments / Re: Freedom Gas!
« on: June 03, 2019, 01:22:37 PM »
Methane's relatively clean burning, Wayward, and if you do the chemistry and the math you''ll find that a methane home stove contributes less to global warming than your personal farts.  (Blue darting reduces global warming since CO2 is better than CH4 in the atmosphere.

While methane in the atmosphere is marginally better for global warming than CO2 (it is a more potent greenhouse gas, but only lasts around 7 years in the atmosphere), burning methane converts it into CO2, thus increasing the atmospheric concentration, which is already way too high.

So fossil methane contributes to global warming even if burned.

62
General Comments / Freedom Gas!
« on: May 30, 2019, 04:34:31 PM »
Yes, you may still think of it as methane or "natural gas" that heats your water.  But when it is liquefied and exported to Europe, it becomes something more.  Something special.  Something that embodies the ideals and values of our great nation.  A symbol of America to the world.

Yes, it becomes...Freedom Gas!   :)

Because, after all, a fossil fuel that makes money for the oil conglomerates while adding CO2 to our atmosphere and increases global warming/climate change is a perfect symbol for this Administration.  ::)

63
General Comments / Re: The Meuller Report
« on: May 30, 2019, 11:26:26 AM »
Quote
Steele made his first contact with the FBI in July.

But it was clearly not the reason the FBI began investigating the Trump campaign in July.  If it were, then it should have been listed as one of the reasons for the investigation.

64
General Comments / Re: The Meuller Report
« on: May 30, 2019, 11:24:15 AM »
Fox News' legal analyst Andrew Napolitano spelled it out as clearly as one could.

Quote
“The evidence he [Mueller] laid out is remarkably similar to the impeachment charges against Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton,” Napolitano, who previously served as a New Jersey Superior Court judge, explained on Fox Business. He then drew direct comparisons between allegations against the former presidents and those laid out by Mueller against Trump, highlighting instances where all the heads of state had allegedly worked to obstruct justice.

“These facts that he laid out are so substantially similar to the matured allegations against Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon, it’s clear where he was going,” Napolitano pointed out...

“Effectively what Bob Mueller said is we had evidence that he committed a crime but we couldn’t charge him because he’s the president of the United States,” Napolitano explained. “This is even stronger than the language in his report. This is also a parting shot at his soon-to-be former boss, the attorney general, because this statement is 180 degrees from the four-page statement that Bill Barr issued at the time he first saw the report.”

Fox Business host Stuart Varney then asked: “Is it that bad?”

“I think so,” Napolitano responded. “Basically he’s saying the president can’t be indicted, otherwise we would have indicted him and we’re not going to charge him with a crime because there’s no forum in which for him to refute the charges, but we could not say that he didn’t commit a crime, fill in the blank, because we believe he did.”

Then there was Fox's chief political anchor Bret Baier:

Quote
“I was struck by the tone and tenor of those remarks, as he [Mueller] laid out his case wrapping up this report,” Baier said Wednesday on America’s Newsroom after the special counsel’s comments were aired live. “This was not, as the president says time and time again, ‘no collusion, no obstruction.’ It was much more nuanced than that,” the anchor explained.

“He [Mueller] said specifically they couldn’t find evidence sufficient to move forward with a crime on the issue of conspiracy, on the collusion part of the investigation on the Trump campaign,” Baier pointed out. “He said specifically if they had found that the president did not commit a crime on obstruction, that they would have said that,” he said...

“It was not anywhere as clear cut as Attorney General Bill Barr [characterized the report],” the political anchor said. “In fact, it was almost exactly the opposite, not clear cut.”

65
General Comments / Re: The Meuller Report
« on: May 29, 2019, 03:40:01 PM »


BTW, Crunch, you do know that the Mueller report confirms that Mueller's investigation was not started because of the Steele dossier?

Quote
The Mueller report confirms it was the actions of Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos that triggered the investigation in July 2016.

Mueller’s report corroborates previous reporting in the New York Times about the sequence of events that set the probe in motion. Papadopoulos told a high-ranking Australian diplomat at an upscale London bar in May 2016 that Moscow had "political dirt" on Hillary Clinton in the form of thousands of emails. (The Mueller report does not identify Australia, however.)

In late July — days after WikiLeaks’ dumped thousands of internal Democratic National Committee documents that proved damaging to Clinton — U.S. law enforcement became aware of Papadopoulos’ claim.

"Within a week of the (WikiLeaks) release, a foreign government informed the FBI about its May 2016 interaction with Papadopoulos and his statement that the Russian government could assist the Trump Campaign," said Mueller’s report (p. 6, volume 1). "On July 31, 2016, based on the foreign government reporting, the FBI opened an investigation into potential coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump campaign."

The dossier compiled by former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele was used, to some extent, to persuade a U.S. foreign intelligence court to authorize surveillance of former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page. But that wasn’t until October 2016 — several months after Papadopoulos’ actions started the investigation.

That’s from a highly biased source and can be dismissed without another thought.


Man, that’s easy enough to do! Wow, I guess I understand why you do it nearly every post now. Really convenient.

OK, Crunch, if you want to ignore PolitiFact, how about this source:

Quote
The Papadopoulos information triggered the opening of an FBI counterintelligence investigation in late July 2016...

So there was an on-going FBI counterintelligence investigation months before the Steele dossier was mentioned in October 2016.  Or do you have some problem with this source, too? :)

66
General Comments / Re: Trump's mental state
« on: May 24, 2019, 06:30:01 PM »
Quote
Was there ever a time Trump didn't talk like this?

Yes, there was such a time, Crunch.  Trump didn't use to speak at a fourth-grade level.  Which either means he is losing it, or he simply believes his audiences at his rallies better relate to that level of speech.

Trump Derangement Syndrome.

You know, it might be easier to just close your eyes, put your fingers in your ears and scream "La-La-La-La" when you see some facts that you don't like, instead of blaming it on the bearer of bad news.  ;D

67
General Comments / Re: Neo-segregation
« on: May 24, 2019, 06:17:03 PM »
What I am disputing is the unstated implication that there is no difference between neo-(self)segregation and Segregation.

What makes one "self" segregation?  In the first instance, white persons wanted to be "self" segregated from black persons and created areas that were exclusively for white persons, in the new one black persons want to be "self" segregated from whites and to create areas that are exclusively for black persons.

I think you're somehow pretending that segregation originally was "put on others" and that the current version is put on oneself.  That's a read that only acknowledges the view point of the black person involved, and not the reciprocal view points of the white person.

In any event, the idea of segregation on campus completely undermines the heavily relied on belief that diversity is vital in creating a college class, so much so that colleges should be able to consider race (which is otherwise strictly prohibited under our laws) in admission decisions.  If diversity is vital to the college experience creating segregation dorms specifically undermines what has been labelled as critical.

I'm not sure which part I am supposedly "pretending"-- that segregation originally was "put on others" (an obvious truth) or that the "current" version is put on oneself.  Let me expand on this.

"Classic" segregation was imposed on others.  If you were black, there was no choice about where you could live, work, go to school, etc.  It was prescribed by law.  You were jailed or worse if you broke it.

This "segregation" seems to be more like a club.  It is not imposed by law.  Even these segregated dorms are not "exclusive" as in the old sense.  I would bet that, if there were no enough students to fill the dorms, whites and others would be housed there.  They would not be left empty because whites were "not allowed."

And even with these segregated dorms, the students themselves are not segregated.  They attend the same classes, eat at the same cafeterias, interact in all other ways.  This is a far cry from entire colleges that were segregated.

And a segregated dorm for white students would be rather silly in a college that is predominantly white.  When most of the dorms are predominantly white, what would be the need to have one exclusively for whites?  Would they feel isolated in regular dorms?  Would they find it difficult to find others like them to associate with?  These are the purposes of these minority-segregated dorms, not to keep "those people" away from them as in "classic" segregation.  (Now, in a black college, I could see the need for such a segregated dorm, and I doubt there would be much hue-and-cry about it. :) )

This supposed "neo-segregation" seems to me to be more about helping students feel comfortable in situations where they are the minority, to help with diversity overall on the campus, rather than "classic" segregation which was to keep races separated.  I see this as the vital difference, and one which cuts the legs off of the reverse-discrimination claims of organizations like the National Association of Scholars.

Please start with your definitions. I expect footnotes.

I ask my questions because I'm not certain you see any difference between classic segregation and neo-segregation, or any similarities between neo-segregation and clubs or peer-pressure behavior.

So before I answer the affirmative about supporting "neo-segregation," I want to be sure that we agree that they are not identical, and both recognize the differences between them.  Because I don't want you coming back saying that I must be a proponent of Jim Crow because I don't see this "neo-segregation" as a horrible thing.  ::)

68
General Comments / Re: The Meuller Report
« on: May 24, 2019, 01:55:50 PM »
BTW, Crunch, you do know that the Mueller report confirms that Mueller's investigation was not started because of the Steele dossier?

Quote
The Mueller report confirms it was the actions of Trump campaign adviser George Papadopoulos that triggered the investigation in July 2016.

Mueller’s report corroborates previous reporting in the New York Times about the sequence of events that set the probe in motion. Papadopoulos told a high-ranking Australian diplomat at an upscale London bar in May 2016 that Moscow had "political dirt" on Hillary Clinton in the form of thousands of emails. (The Mueller report does not identify Australia, however.)

In late July — days after WikiLeaks’ dumped thousands of internal Democratic National Committee documents that proved damaging to Clinton — U.S. law enforcement became aware of Papadopoulos’ claim.

"Within a week of the (WikiLeaks) release, a foreign government informed the FBI about its May 2016 interaction with Papadopoulos and his statement that the Russian government could assist the Trump Campaign," said Mueller’s report (p. 6, volume 1). "On July 31, 2016, based on the foreign government reporting, the FBI opened an investigation into potential coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump campaign."

The dossier compiled by former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele was used, to some extent, to persuade a U.S. foreign intelligence court to authorize surveillance of former Trump campaign adviser Carter Page. But that wasn’t until October 2016 — several months after Papadopoulos’ actions started the investigation.

That’s from a highly biased source and can be dismissed without another thought.


Man, that’s easy enough to do! Wow, I guess I understand why you do it nearly every post now. Really convenient.

I can see now why you're such an ardent Trump supporter:  you gloss over all subtleties.  ::)

As I tried to tell you in my other posts, the reasons I ignore some of your more fringe sources is based on easy-to-do demagoguery techniques of cherry-picking, strawmanning and such.

Gathering instances showing that Democrats always do X or Y is easy.  Just ignore every instance when they don't.  Similarly, showing instances where liberals are segregating is easy.  Just re-define segregation so that it fits your desired outcome.  When sites are likely, or obviously, doing so, I'm not going to waste my time reading them.

My assertion, however, is much simpler.  Did the Mueller investigation start because of the Steele dossier?  The answer to that does not lie in omitting valid information or redefining terms.  It has to do with a very simple fact:  did the investigation start before the Steele dossier was used?

According to Politifact, Mueller stated that an FBI investigation started on July 31, 2016 because of Papadopoulos' contact with the Russians.  That this investigation did not include the Steele dossier until October of that year.  And that this investigation became Mueller's investigation when Comey was fired.

What facts were omitted that would change this line of reasoning?  What re-definitions did I do?  You say that the investigation started with the Steele dossier.  I say it started before the Steele dossier was mentioned.  I have facts and dates that prove it.  Does it matter where these facts come from?  Can you, or anyone, not easily verify these facts from another source?

The bottom line here is that, in this instance, it doesn't matter who came up with the facts.  Finding a fact that shows that the FBI investigation which became the Mueller investigation started before the Steele dossier was used proves that the Steele dossier was not the reason the investigation was started.  Unless you wish to dispute those facts, disputing the site where I found those facts is an obvious ad hominem.  You're just trying to cloud the issue with it.  And sully my reputation along the way.  :P

69
General Comments / Re: Neo-segregation
« on: May 23, 2019, 06:31:19 PM »
Crunch, can you summarize the differences between neo-segregation, classic segregation, peer-pressure and club membership?  Just so that we're all clear...

70
General Comments / Re: Trump's mental state
« on: May 23, 2019, 06:26:30 PM »
Quote
Was there ever a time Trump didn't talk like this?

Yes, there was such a time, Crunch.  Trump didn't use to speak at a fourth-grade level.  Which either means he is losing it, or he simply believes his audiences at his rallies better relate to that level of speech.

71
General Comments / Re: Neo-segregation
« on: May 23, 2019, 03:52:21 PM »
Shocking!  I am shocked to hear that Wayward.   ::)

I’m not. It’s the easy way to dismiss anything without a moments critical thought. Pretty standard procedure around here. He did not read the report, did not consider anything on its merit, just googled up enough to shoot the messenger. Facts take back seat (get it? Back of the bus?) to ideology with the left and this is a perfect example of that.

What makes you think I'm disputing any "facts?"  People self-segregate.  I don't dispute that.  You see it in where people live and vote.

What I am disputing is the unstated implication that there is no difference between neo-(self)segregation and Segregation.  That they are both evil, that both should be fought against, and that the Left are hypocrites because they support one and condemn the other.  Which are not facts, but opinions.

Now, since you did read the report, you can make me look foolish and tell me that none of those things are implied by the report.  That this organization, which goals are to end affirmative action and multiculturalism, published this report with no intention, implicit or otherwise, to use it as proof that their opinions are right.  But then you have to answer why they call it "neo-segregation" rather than something more neutral.

If they did not try to do those things, please explain what they were trying to do.  But if they were trying to do them, please don't waste all our time by sniping at me for "shooting the messenger," when I got the message loud and clear without even needing to hear him. ;) 

72
General Comments / Re: Neo-segregation
« on: May 22, 2019, 04:00:35 PM »
It is an indication that it's a thing only to people who don't care about segregation per se and are more concerned with something else, like ending affirmative action (which was established to counteract the effects of past segregation).

IOW, it's something they want to make a thing, but it's only a thing to them.  It's no-thing to everyone else. :)

73
General Comments / Re: Neo-segregation
« on: May 22, 2019, 02:41:49 PM »
It should be noted that the National Association of Scholars is "an American non-profit politically conservative advocacy group, with a particular interest in education.[2][3] It promotes free speech on college campuses for dissident political trends, a return to mid-20th-century curricular and scholarship norms, and an increase in conservative representation in faculty" and "opposes multiculturalism and affirmative action and seeks to counter what it considers a "liberal bias" in academia."

So this organization is not concerned with minority rights or the effects of segregation from the past.  It would appear that this is an attempt to broaden the meaning of "segregation" to include any voluntary, non-exclusionary separation of groups, for the likely purpose of negating affirmative action for minorities.

74
General Comments / Re: Why the frenzy?
« on: May 16, 2019, 06:22:05 PM »
Quote
Looking around, I was even more astonished to find that 716 candidates have actually registered with the FEC, including strange ones.

Just to give some perspective, there have always been hundreds of candidates who have registered with the FEC to run for President.

You can find the list for 2016 here.  Just find the black box labelled "Federal Election Commission filed candidates" under Full list of declared candidates, and click [show].  I didn't count how many there were, because it took 54 "page-downs" to get to the bottom of the list, and I ain't nearly that patient.  ;D

It is amazing how no one reports on how many people run for President every election.  OTOH, who really cares about a vast majority of them?  :)

75
General Comments / Re: Stormy Daniels and the Surreal Reality
« on: May 15, 2019, 03:52:52 PM »
No reason to speculate.  If she was the one who forced the payment at that time, you have a point.  But I haven't seen anything that indicates that.  Is this based on something you know, or just a possible excuse that may or may not be true.

I'm not speculating! You're the one making a positive statement about what did happen. I have no clue!

We know that she did not force Trump to pay her at that time.  Trump could have paid her anytime before the election is his purpose was to keep his loved ones from knowing about the affair.  Apparently, he didn't care until he was a candidate.  That's a pretty strong indication of motivation in my book.

76
General Comments / Re: Stormy Daniels and the Surreal Reality
« on: May 15, 2019, 03:44:48 PM »
So on Stormy's timing, it was a case of trying to profit off the story, but happy to take an extortion payout instead.  You can easily find the details, she gave an interview in 2011 to InTouch that they never published (until after the election), and decided to shop the story after the Access Hollywood release.  As that apparently prompted her agent to decide it was a good time to shop it, the profit motive, rather than an ethical one seems clearly paramount.  And in fact, since she did agree to an NDA for a cash payment that's exactly what played out.

Of course, blackmail or extortion doesn't bother you.


Blackmail?  Extortion?  How can you blackmail or extort someone with public information??   ???

Quote
The first reports of an alleged 2006 affair between Trump and Daniels ... were published in October 2011 by the blog The Dirty and the magazine Life & Style.  Around the same time, Daniels talked about the alleged affair with the gossip magazine In Touch Weekly, which chose not to publish the interview after Cohen threatened to sue the magazine.

Stormy's motivation is not in question here.  She was trying to make money on the story.  It's Trump's motivation that is salient.

If Trump was trying to prevent the story from becoming public knowledge to his loved ones, the cat was already out of the bag, and no NDA was going to stop it.

If Trump was trying to prevent the story from becoming widely known, an NDA would help.

Quote
Quote
Lol, yes, makes total sense, let's enter into a non-disclosure agreement and wait a sec, how do you spell your name for the press release about our non-disclosure agreement?

To which I say, too bad.  :P  His stupidity is not an excuse to break the law.

There's no law requiring the public disclosure of an NDA.  Again, this case is a loser on campaign finance.  The John Edwards case was far far more egregious and it too was a loser.  There's absolutely no way to establish that a private payment, where the motive is mixed, was a technical violation of campaign financial laws, and it's already clear it's not a substantive one.  Campaign finance is about misapproriation of campaign resources, which is why candidates can spend in unlimited ways.

It's not just about misappropriation.  In this case, it was using funds for a campaign that were not reported as such, not using campaign funds for non-campaign purposes.  Or are you using "misappropriation" in a different way?

And if a case is a "loser," does that mean it is automatically legal and not breaking the law? ;)

Quote
As I noted before, your read would make every haircut a candidate gets, every new suit, every single vanity item into a campaign expense, as they are all targeted at least in part at electability, and it's been clearly established by the actual cases that charging those to the campaign, whether or not disclosed, can trigger violations of the law.

If taken to the extreme, perhaps.  Taken to the opposite extreme, paying for hours of TV commercials advocating for a candidate is not a campaign contribution if they also plugged a specific brand of toothpaste at the end. :)  What makes you think paying off a woman to protect a campaign is the same as getting a haircut?

Quote
Your read on this is self serving nonsense, not an accurate statement of how the law works or is intended to work.

I am no lawyer, so if you would like to explain how the laws which so many pundits were referring is not applicable in this case, I'm interested to hear it. 

Quote
Quote
Quote
NDAs are legal.  Whether they should be is a different question.  With his background there's no legitimate way to separate his personal desire for an NDA from a political purpose, which makes treating it as a campaign expense highly questionable and paying for it from campaign funds probably a violation.

Define "legitimate."  He had years to make sure she signed an NDA.  During all that time, he apparently wasn't worried about her blabbing to his wife, etc.  But suddenly, just before the election, it becomes a serious personal issue, completely separate from his running for President?  What a coincidence!  ::)

She brought it up, see above.  Her agent saw that after the Access Hollywood release the information value now had a premium and they moved to market it.

I'm willing to bet there are other women out there that have slept with him that he's never reached out to.

Once again, her motivations are not salient to this.  Did Trump pay her off to protect his personal reputation, or to protect his campaign for President?

Quote
Quote
It certainly appears to be campaign related.

Lol.  By your "standard" everything is.

Sounds like, by your standard, nothing is. ;)

Quote
Quote
And, as I said before, what would prevent him from paying from his personal funds and declaring it a "campaign contribution?"  An in-kind contribution of sorts, where he didn't put money in the campaign, just reported the value that was used to be part of his campaign?  That seems to me to legally cover him.  And if it made the NDA useless, well, as I said before, not my problem. :)

So if a candidate pays for medicine for an illness, where disclosing the illness could hurt their campaign, even if it's not disqualifying, by your logic that too is a campaign finance violation.  If a candidate is in a fender bender and the other person says, lets settle this with a $500 payment and not involve the police or our insurance, that too is a campaign finance violation.

If a candidate, pays to have dentures so they can smile, that's a campaign finance violation.

You have no sense of perspective.

No, you're trying to make everything equivalent when they are not.  Just because paying off a fender-bender doesn't need to be reported does not imply that paying for TV commercials doesn't need to be, either, or paying someone a NDA doesn't need to be reported.

Quote
Quote
Quote
Again, what you are seeking is not about the Rule of Law, its about the corruption of law for a political purpose.

No, what you're trying to do is excuse Trump from breaking the law.

What law is that?

From what I understand, the law says that contributions to a campaign must be reported, even non-monetary, "in-kind" contributions.  Trump made a contribution to his own campaign in the form of a NDA payment to Stormy.  He tried to hide it by various devious means and by out-and-out denial that he ever made it.  That appears to me to be someone trying to break the law and hide it.

Quote
There's no winnable case based on your misinterpretation, ergo not against the law, ergo not excusing breaking the law.

Am I understanding you correctly?  That breaking the law is primarily determined by whether there is a "winnable case" or not?  That, in fact, if the case is not "winnable," is it automatically legal?   ???

77
General Comments / Re: Stormy Daniels and the Surreal Reality
« on: May 15, 2019, 11:47:53 AM »
Define "legitimate."  He had years to make sure she signed an NDA.  During all that time, he apparently wasn't worried about her blabbing to his wife, etc.  But suddenly, just before the election, it becomes a serious personal issue, completely separate from his running for President?  What a coincidence!  ::)

It certainly appears to be campaign related.

I'm not sure what's so hard to understand. You are insisting that Trump decided to do this right at election time, as if there was no possibility that it was her choice of timing to maximize the damage to him and/or increase her chances of a great settlement.

Let's dispense with "possibilities."  What are the actual facts in this case?  Whose choice was it regarding timing?  Was she the one who asked for the hush money?  Why would she ask for it, since she already talked about the affair back in 2006?  (Hard to ask someone to "hush" something that was already public knowledge. :) )  What actually happened?

No reason to speculate.  If she was the one who forced the payment at that time, you have a point.  But I haven't seen anything that indicates that.  Is this based on something you know, or just a possible excuse that may or may not be true.

78
General Comments / Re: Stormy Daniels and the Surreal Reality
« on: May 14, 2019, 06:32:44 PM »
Quote
Lol, yes, makes total sense, let's enter into a non-disclosure agreement and wait a sec, how do you spell your name for the press release about our non-disclosure agreement?

To which I say, too bad.  :P  His stupidity is not an excuse to break the law.

Quote
NDAs are legal.  Whether they should be is a different question.  With his background there's no legitimate way to separate his personal desire for an NDA from a political purpose, which makes treating it as a campaign expense highly questionable and paying for it from campaign funds probably a violation.

Define "legitimate."  He had years to make sure she signed an NDA.  During all that time, he apparently wasn't worried about her blabbing to his wife, etc.  But suddenly, just before the election, it becomes a serious personal issue, completely separate from his running for President?  What a coincidence!  ::)

It certainly appears to be campaign related.

And, as I said before, what would prevent him from paying from his personal funds and declaring it a "campaign contribution?"  An in-kind contribution of sorts, where he didn't put money in the campaign, just reported the value that was used to be part of his campaign?  That seems to me to legally cover him.  And if it made the NDA useless, well, as I said before, not my problem. :)

Quote
Again, what you are seeking is not about the Rule of Law, its about the corruption of law for a political purpose.

No, what you're trying to do is excuse Trump from breaking the law.

Quote from: wayward
And, actually, you're the one who admitted it to me, since I didn't specify it at all


Yes you did. In a previous post. I had no idea what you were saying and out of respect to you I read your previous posts to find out what you meant.  Given your insulting response I won't treat you with such respect in the future if you take that as an admission. You just turned into Crunch's counterpart. Is that really how you want to be?

Good detective work on your part, since I didn't even remember that I had addressed this issue previously in this thread.  My apologies.  I assumed you just remembered it, since just about all the liberal pundits who discussed the issue at the time made it very clear that his breaking campaign finance law was the primary reason Trump was being criticized.  I was afraid this was another case of selective memory, where conservatives ascribe motivations and reasons to liberals that have little to nothing to do with their real motivations.  Again, my apologies.

Quote
I think this is a crazy point to even make. It makes literally no sense to argue that he morally should have publicly declared a NDA to cover over an affair.

Once again, it's not a moral question but a legal one.  Spending money to help his campaign, by making sure Stormy didn't blab, should have been reported.  The moral and ethical lapse was Trump believing he didn't need to obey the law, then lying like a dog to cover it up.

79
General Comments / Re: Where’s RBG?
« on: May 14, 2019, 12:57:46 PM »
Hey, if it was determined by brain activity, half the conservative judges wouldn't qualify now!  ;) ;D

80
General Comments / Re: Stormy Daniels and the Surreal Reality
« on: May 14, 2019, 12:16:30 PM »
I'm not saying that his failure to record this as a campaign offense is "the reason he's in trouble."  I'm telling you that it is. :)

And, actually, you're the one who admitted it to me, since I didn't specify it at all. :D

Seriati, obviously the legal and ethical thing to do was to pay Stormy with his own funds and report it as a campaign contribution.  Nothing in the law (AFAIK) prevents a candidate from contributing to himself.

Instead, he tried to hide the payment and lied about it.  What does that tell you about Trump's legal and ethical intentions?

81
General Comments / Re: Stormy Daniels and the Surreal Reality
« on: May 13, 2019, 07:09:56 PM »
And, remarkably, with this long list of reasons, you missed the single reason Trump is in trouble because of this "indiscretion." :)

82
General Comments / Re: The Pandora's box of tax returns
« on: May 08, 2019, 02:39:14 PM »
One thing I don't understand is why a man who said he would release his tax returns (like all recent Presidential candidates have) "as soon as the audit is finished," is now fighting tooth-and-nail to keep them from Congress.  ???

And do all the arguments for preventing the House from looking at Trump's returns also apply to Trump's right to look at anyone's tax returns?  ???

83
General Comments / Re: Just making life easier for climate deniers
« on: April 30, 2019, 04:15:20 PM »
After all, science is a democrat thing.  What use would Republicans have with it? :)

84
General Comments / Re: Just making life easier for climate deniers
« on: April 30, 2019, 04:12:02 PM »
We’re down to only 10 years until it’s irreversible or the planet melts or whatever it is the global warming doomsday cult predicts. Beto just announced it.

First, Beto is not a climatologist.  So why are you worried about what he says, unless it is backed up by the science?

Second, he didn't say "the planet melts" or even "whatever."  If you paid attention to what is actually said by those more knowledgeable than you, you might learn something.  :P

Quote
AGW is bull*censored*, the whole cult is full of window lickers from the back of the short bus that scream about science while refusing to get vaccinated and insisting there are 2 dozen genders. It’s science bro!

You're only showing your own ignorance with rants like that, Crunch.

AGW advocates and vaccination deniers are not the same group.  In fact, I'd wager that there are more AGW-deniers among the anti-vaxxers than AGW-proponents.

And remember that gender is a social construct.  You're probably getting it mixed up with a person's sex (which is not the same thing).

Quote
It’s like talking to really annoying Scientologists except warmists want to force you into poverty while the rich and powerful get richer and more powerful. At least Scientologist can be ignored. Show me a warmist, I’ll show you a useful idiot for a totalitarian ideology. That’s why this breaks down so cleanly along ideological lines, it’s a totalitarian wet dream.

Booga-booga-booga.  "We'll all be poor if we believe the Earth is warming!"  You're so concerned looking at your wallet, you don't see the bus heading toward you.

Sticking you head in the sand only means you'll be bit in the *ss.  The Earth is warming.  The evidence is all there.  Which were the ten hottest years on record?  Why didn't the global average temperatures decrease after the previous el nino event, like all the deniers kept telling us?  Why is nature conspiring with all those totalitarian ideologists to take away your money and freedom??

It breaks along ideological lines because Fox and the Conservative media has been drumming this lie into your heads for the past few decades.  Because they are afraid that transitioning to power sources that won't warm our planet will cost too much and their stocks will go down.  So what if ocean levels rise, deserts become larger, flooding becomes more common, crops die because of heat and drought, cities become uninhabitable because of heat and humidity, and the oceans become so acidic that much of sea life dies?  They'll have enough money to protect themselves.  Maybe not their children or grandchildren, but that's not their problem...

You think AGW advocates are part of a cult?  Look in the mirror.  :P

85
General Comments / Re: Just making life easier for climate deniers
« on: April 30, 2019, 02:51:25 PM »
The more pragmatic one, in terms of Climate Change being valid, but Anthropogenic is minimal, would be that matter of while this may be "the warmest it has been in the last 100,000 years" they're constantly ignoring the matter of their favored epochs largely sitting astride a global ice age.

Based on paleoclimate records, after averaging the reconstructed temperature proxies over the past ~600 million years, we're 5 Degrees (Celsius) below the average. (The further back you go, the higher the average becomes; also keep in mind, the long-term average for the Earth-Sun relationship is supposed to be a warming trend, not a cooling one)

Why should I care about the climate when trilobites ruled the Earth?  ??? What does that have to do with our climate now?  We evolved in the last 100,000 years or so.  This is the climate we, and all plants and animals we evolved with (and use as food), are used to.  What makes you think all of them will be unaffected by climate change?

And what were the factors that made the climate so much hotter in the past?  Has the sun insolance become less over the millenniums?  Has the orbit changed slightly?  Are these factors currently affecting the climate? 

Quote
Yes things are changing, but things have always been changing, the paleoclimate record is extremely clear about that. Paleoclimate records are also clear that the past Million years or so are the anomaly, not the norm. Further, humans had exactly zero impact on most of the changes observed in the records over that time scale.

So what if the climate changed before?  We're changing the climate now.  Apparently at a faster rate than past climate changes.  So what if the sun insolance or the Earth's orbit changed the climate a million years ago?  We're concerned with the change that's happening now.

Quote
AGW might be contributing to what we're seeing happening today, but its highly questionable that it is the only thing at play. And given the way that AGW has become dogma for much of the Climate Research Community, you might as well be Galileo telling the Roman Catholic Church that the Earth orbits around the sun, and that the only stellar body that orbits Earth is the moon. Only instead of "Earth" replace it with CO2, and instead of orbits, we're looking at warming. CO2 evidently is supposed to explain it all, even if the paleo-record often contradicts such claims.

We know AGW is definitely contributing, because it is increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.  That alone will increase the heat retained in our climate.  Anyone who denies that is an idiot.

So what do your models say is the major contributor to the recent observed increase in global average temperatures?  What is the consensus opinion among deniers?  How much of the warming is due to other factors like solar insolance?  Can you list those other factors?  How did your computer models calculate those contributions?  Did they take the oceans absorption of heat into account?  How about reflections from ice and rocks?

And please tell me you have these things.  You, who mock the man-decades of work that has gone into climate research and climate modelling.  The least you must have is a computer model that shows that all the rest of the climate research community is wrong.  I mean, I know you aren't basing this on some make-believe "theories" by a few contrarians, or "just-so" stories from internet sites.  Where is your solid science that you are mocking climate science with?  Show me the reasons you believe this, and why your theories and data are better than the scientific consensus.

We wait with bated breath. :)

86
General Comments / Re: Democratic processes kill 270 Indonesians
« on: April 29, 2019, 06:40:01 PM »
And I believe most of what you think isn't horrible is the result of information from a biased media that lies and refuses to report all the facts to you, along with philosophical ideas that are designed to help increase the power of another set of autocrats and reduce the freedoms and fairness of our nation.

But that's the nature of politics these days, ain't it? :)

87
General Comments / Re: Democratic processes kill 270 Indonesians
« on: April 29, 2019, 06:27:08 PM »
You missed msnbc's white lady on white lady outrage about the 53% number?  Or are you protesting my "LeftPress"abbreviations derogatory?

Sorry, I missed the one white lady you're thinking of.  Does everything single thing any single person says on MSNBC, et al, automatically become the doctrine of the "LeftPress?"

Quote
Do you honestly think that Trump has proved worse than what his mainstream opponents said about him during the election?

I did hear a number of horrible things he would do that, so far, have not come to pass (thank God!) from a number of opponents during the election.  So in that you are correct.

OTOH, I did hear a number of good things that were supposed to have happened from his supporters that have yet to come to pass. :)

And I've seen a number of horrible things that have come to pass that I know would not have happened had his opponent won.  Those are undeniable.  And those are the things I consider when I say that the election had actual consequences.

You can imagine anything under "what if" scenarios and use it to justify any conclusion.  But you have to admit that this country is in a completely different place than it would have been if Hillary had one.  A worse place, IMHO.

88
General Comments / Re: Democratic processes kill 270 Indonesians
« on: April 29, 2019, 04:47:32 PM »
Dunno.  I don't read the "LeftPress."  ;)

89
General Comments / Re: Democratic processes kill 270 Indonesians
« on: April 29, 2019, 03:49:08 PM »
"...doesn't matter if the game is crooked when it's the only game in town."--Heinlein

90
General Comments / Re: Democratic processes kill 270 Indonesians
« on: April 29, 2019, 01:40:40 PM »
The problem is that many Americans convince themselves that there is no significant difference between the choices.  Only afterward, as in the 2016 election, do they discover that there are significant differences. :(

91
General Comments / Re: Democratic processes kill 270 Indonesians
« on: April 29, 2019, 12:38:28 PM »
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-48083051

Anyone for a recount?

And to think around half of Americans think voting isn't very important...  ::)

92
General Comments / Re: Obamacare Predictions for May 2015
« on: April 26, 2019, 04:32:21 PM »
How does the rate of the rate increases compare to pre-Obamacare days?  It is a similar percentage, higher or lower?

93
General Comments / Re: The Meuller Report
« on: April 26, 2019, 03:59:40 PM »
Quote
So what? Is it guilty until proven innocent? No, it's not. Mueller is saying they could not prove obstruction, they didn't have evidence that supported the charge of obstruction. That's all. There was no obstruction.

That's very high-minded of you, Crunch.  Basically saying that, if there wasn't enough evidence of obstruction to charge a person, then that is the same as the person did not do any obstruction at all.  Legally, that is perfectly true.  Practically, we know it isn't, since the bar for charging a person is higher than just there being evidence.  Especially for the President, where the Justice Department has a policy of not charging a sitting President with crimes, but leaves that up to Congress.

I would be impressed, if I believed for one millisecond that you believed it. :)

Don't fool yourself or us.  You know you completely believe that people can be guilty of crimes without there being sufficient evidence to convict them.  And if you read the report, there are many instances of Trump trying to stop or impede the investigation--ordering Corey Lewandowski and Don McGahn to fire Mueller, asking K.T. McFarland to write a letter denying that Trump had directed Flynn to contact the Russian ambassador about sanctions, firing Comey, etc.  All actual evidence of obstruction.

In fact, read what Mueller wrote yourself:

Quote
Fourth, if we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President
clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state.
Based on the facts and the
applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment. The evidence we
obtained about the President's actions and intent presents difficult issues that prevent us from
conclusively determining that no criminal conduct occurred.
Accordingly, while this report does
not conclude that the President committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.
(Emphasis mine.)

After reading that, can you state with a good conscience that Mueller completely, utterly exonerated Trump of obstruction??  :o

Many things can be said about the Mueller report.  That the report says there was no obstruction is not one of them.

Quote
What. If. They. Did.

When you put it that way, it's literally like they actually did! I mean, hypothetically speaking, it was literally done, wasn't it? 50% of the time, they turned votes 90% of the time.

LMAO, this is so weird. What an absurd "what if" fantasy.

Whether the Russian attempts to illegally influence our elections were successful or not is beside the point.  They very well may have been, and definitely could have been, successful.  Even if they failed this time, what makes you think they won't next time?  Or the time after that?  Or Iran, or China, or North Korea, or any other nation that doesn't like us and wants us to either fail or change our policies?

The Mueller report outlines specific illegal acts that Russia did to influence the 2016 election.  We should not excuse or ignore such acts just because there were other, legal methods of influencing our elections.   And even if they didn't work the last time, they may work the next time.  And what will you do then?

94
General Comments / Re: Fitness as a tool of oppression
« on: April 26, 2019, 01:48:16 PM »
Although obesity is more complex than just people eating too much and not exercising (anecdotally, I know this from college, when I ate 3 big meals a day and hardly ever exercised, but still was as skinny as a rail), denying the health risks is just plain stupid.  Denialism at its worst.

There are crazies on all ends of the spectrums.  ::)

95
General Comments / Re: The Meuller Report
« on: April 25, 2019, 05:48:35 PM »
The word "interference" is so nebulous, lacking in quantitative value, and deliberately obscure, that it can literally mean anything and be tied to anyone. One can say that Trump wasn't guilty of colluding, but benefited from "interference". It's a technical way of somehow tying his election to Russia no matter what other evidence is on the table. In my opinion this is poisoning the well, and if any discussion is going to be had about Russian interference (which is fair play) it should be stricken from any connection with conversations about Trump's behavior, collusion, or criminality in other regards.

It hasn't even been established that "interference" is illegal, much less even outrageous, given how much the U.S. interferes in foreign elections, politics, regimes, and so much more. If realpolotik suggests that one can use sheer might to enforce "laws for thee but not for me" that's perhaps how this world works, but needn't worm its way into more intelligent discussions.

So you're saying, Fenring, that if Iran mounted a propaganda campaign similar to Russia's, and convinced a large number of independent voters to vote Democrat in the next election, you'd have no problem with that? 

If Russia did the same for Trump, letting him know beforehand that they won't do it unless he changed certain policies, that you'd have no problem with that?

If China let it be known that they would spread lies and disinformation about any candidate that didn't explicitly denounce all tariffs, now or in the future, that would be "fair play" and we should just accept it?

But, what if they didn't convince a single voter? SMH.  See how easy it is to destroy the "what if"? Just show the truth that the "what if" is nothing more than fear mongering.

What if they did?  Are you willing to take that chance?  Are you willing to have the election go to the Democrat because of an illegal ad campaign by the Iranians, the Chinese, or the Russians?

Trump won by around 100,000 votes.  How successful did the Russians need to be to turn that many votes?

96
General Comments / Re: The Meuller Report
« on: April 25, 2019, 05:45:46 PM »
It might anger me, if the Trump people weren't constantly lying about their contacts.

Multiple investigations confirm: No collusion. No obstruction.

With the Mueller investigation explicitly not being one of them. :)
You have to use a lot more emoticons to make that true, maybe a 1000 since it's so far from true.

Hey, don't blame me.  Blame the guy who wrote this:

Quote
f we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the President clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state. Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, we are unable to reach that judgment.

Quote
From Rolling Stone:
Quote
There was no Trump-Russia conspiracy, that thing we just spent three years chasing. The Mueller Report is crystal clear on this.

He didn’t just “fail to establish” evidence of crime. His report is full of incredibly damning passages, like one about Russian officialdom’s efforts to reach the Trump campaign after the election: “They appeared not to have preexisting contacts and struggled to connect with senior officials around the President-Elect.”

Not only was there no “collusion,” the two camps didn’t even have each others’ phone numbers!

No collusion. Ever. Trump campaign officials and the Russians didn't even know how to contact each other.

Wow!  Guys who never even had each other's numbers sure talked a lot to each other.  How do you think they did that?

97
General Comments / Re: The Meuller Report
« on: April 25, 2019, 04:38:07 PM »
So you're saying, Fenring, that if Iran mounted a propaganda campaign similar to Russia's, and convinced a large number of independent voters to vote Democrat in the next election, you'd have no problem with that?

Are you suggesting that free speech itself about American politics is what should be banned, and that people of foreign citizenship (government or otherwise) should be debarred from making convincing arguments about politics that might sway people? Or are you talking strictly about doing so under the guise of being someone local, like a fake Twitter account? Or do you mean employing intelligence operatives to do actually illegal activities? All of these may be implied by what you say, and based on past discussions it sounds like "interference" can mean literally anything wherein foreign people stick their noses in American affairs. But the matter is far more difficult than that, because if completely legal speech can affect American political results, isn't that exactly what freedom is supposed to achieve? Or do you mean that if you don't like who's doing the speaking their speech should be silenced?

Now, I completely sympathize with not wanting 'bad guys' as it were to mess up stuff in America. But a careful line has to be drawn between speech you don't like, activities that actually break terms of service on sites like Twitter or FB, and activities that are actually illegal and for which the CIA and NSA should already be employed to police. But the basic idea that when something is done by the UK that's ok, and the same thing coming from Iran or Russia is treated criminally - that's pretty messed up to me.
I have no problem (well, little problem :) )if foreign countries endorse one candidate or another, so long as they do it up-front.

What I do have a problem with is when a country uses lies and deceit to do so.  When they commit crimes to do so.  When they contact the candidate's campaign and tell them they are going to do so, implicitly or explicitly letting them know that the candidate will owe them.  When the campaign provides information to them that might be helpful.  That's when corruption can creep in.  That's when a President's loyalty can be undermined.

Free speech is fine.  Campaign help, especially illegal help, is not.


Quote
Opening up our elections to any subterfuge by any foreign country to  influence our elections is a very, very bad idea.  Because by influencing our elections, they influence our foreign policy the way they want, which may be detrimental to our best interests.

What you're pointing out isn't a weakness in American security, but rather a weakness in democracy itself. It goes without saying that people can be swayed against their own interests. We can see this plainly enough in local American politics. That you would prefer certain interested parties to be doing this rather than others is an opinion, but the concept of sheltering people from damaging ideas is a real non-starter. Maybe the right move should be to bolster cohesion among Americans rather than setting up ideal grounds for foreign entities to divide and conquer. Both American parties and their powerful special interests are to blame for creating easy pickings for the likes of Russia.
[/quote]

No reason we can't do all of the above.

98
General Comments / Re: The Meuller Report
« on: April 25, 2019, 02:54:11 PM »
The word "interference" is so nebulous, lacking in quantitative value, and deliberately obscure, that it can literally mean anything and be tied to anyone. One can say that Trump wasn't guilty of colluding, but benefited from "interference". It's a technical way of somehow tying his election to Russia no matter what other evidence is on the table. In my opinion this is poisoning the well, and if any discussion is going to be had about Russian interference (which is fair play) it should be stricken from any connection with conversations about Trump's behavior, collusion, or criminality in other regards.

It hasn't even been established that "interference" is illegal, much less even outrageous, given how much the U.S. interferes in foreign elections, politics, regimes, and so much more. If realpolotik suggests that one can use sheer might to enforce "laws for thee but not for me" that's perhaps how this world works, but needn't worm its way into more intelligent discussions.

So you're saying, Fenring, that if Iran mounted a propaganda campaign similar to Russia's, and convinced a large number of independent voters to vote Democrat in the next election, you'd have no problem with that? 

If Russia did the same for Trump, letting him know beforehand that they won't do it unless he changed certain policies, that you'd have no problem with that?

If China let it be known that they would spread lies and disinformation about any candidate that didn't explicitly denounce all tariffs, now or in the future, that would be "fair play" and we should just accept it?

Opening up our elections to any subterfuge by any foreign country to  influence our elections is a very, very bad idea.  Because by influencing our elections, they influence our foreign policy the way they want, which may be detrimental to our best interests.

Do you think Russia won't help Trump in the next election without him agreeing to certain concessions?  And are you 100 percent certain that he will ignore those concessions, since he barely won the last election?  And does your confidence also apply to the next Democratic President?

Do you really want to bet the security of our nation on that? ;)

99
General Comments / Re: The Meuller Report
« on: April 25, 2019, 02:41:48 PM »
It might anger me, if the Trump people weren't constantly lying about their contacts.

Multiple investigations confirm: No collusion. No obstruction.

With the Mueller investigation explicitly not being one of them. :)

100
General Comments / Re: The Meuller Report
« on: April 24, 2019, 05:40:58 PM »
Quote
...it took the Steele Dossier to "put it over the top" which makes things smell more than a bit rotten...

From what I understand, the Steele Dossier didn't "put it over the top."  The original information about Papadopoulos started the investigation.  The Dossier was only added at the second FICA hearing (IIRC) as some evidence that the investigation was proceeding and getting results.  At best, it was a nudge that kept the investigation going, not something required to get it started in the first place.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 ... 26