hate these ads?, log in or register to hide them
Page 2687 of 2701 FirstFirst ... 1687218725872637267726842685268626872688268926902697 ... LastLast
Results 53,721 to 53,740 of 54015

Thread: USA Politics Thread

  1. #53721
    Malcanis's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 12, 2011
    Posts
    14,467
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by cullnean View Post
    Back on topic less attacks please

    Sent from my moto g(6) using Tapatalk
    In fairness, I probably deserve the attacks on me.

    Back on-topic -- Trump's Comments Embolden Rape Culture: https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/03/opini...yer/index.html

    It's of interest that Trump never seems to say "the right thing" or the "political thing", he just spouts what he spouts even when it's obvious he should be mindful of and measured with his words.
    It's "red meat" speaking. Trump is ignorant and deeply unpleasant, but that doesn't mean that he doesn't know what he's doing. You know how when a politician in some foreign country says something that - to you - is obviously batshit insane or maybe just plain wrong? 99/100 he's not talking to you, he's talking to his political base. What he's saying makes sense to them. It's what they want to hear, in language they speak, in terms they understand, based on axioms they agree with.
    Quote Originally Posted by Keieueue View Post
    I love Malcanis!

  2. #53722
    mewninn's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    1,659
    Quote Originally Posted by Malcanis View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by cullnean View Post
    Back on topic less attacks please

    Sent from my moto g(6) using Tapatalk
    In fairness, I probably deserve the attacks on me.

    Back on-topic -- Trump's Comments Embolden Rape Culture: https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/03/opini...yer/index.html

    It's of interest that Trump never seems to say "the right thing" or the "political thing", he just spouts what he spouts even when it's obvious he should be mindful of and measured with his words.
    It's "red meat" speaking. Trump is ignorant and deeply unpleasant, but that doesn't mean that he doesn't know what he's doing. You know how when a politician in some foreign country says something that - to you - is obviously batshit insane or maybe just plain wrong? 99/100 he's not talking to you, he's talking to his political base. What he's saying makes sense to them. It's what they want to hear, in language they speak, in terms they understand, based on axioms they agree with.
    Any politician can do this, but its more more popular with authoritarians than not.

    This is why you have the verbal diarrhea from Duterte, or the endless shitheel behavior of Erdogan. The DC brawl no doubt played well with his rural trogs

  3. #53723
    Malcanis's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 12, 2011
    Posts
    14,467
    Quote Originally Posted by mewninn View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Malcanis View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by cullnean View Post
    Back on topic less attacks please

    Sent from my moto g(6) using Tapatalk
    In fairness, I probably deserve the attacks on me.

    Back on-topic -- Trump's Comments Embolden Rape Culture: https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/03/opini...yer/index.html

    It's of interest that Trump never seems to say "the right thing" or the "political thing", he just spouts what he spouts even when it's obvious he should be mindful of and measured with his words.
    It's "red meat" speaking. Trump is ignorant and deeply unpleasant, but that doesn't mean that he doesn't know what he's doing. You know how when a politician in some foreign country says something that - to you - is obviously batshit insane or maybe just plain wrong? 99/100 he's not talking to you, he's talking to his political base. What he's saying makes sense to them. It's what they want to hear, in language they speak, in terms they understand, based on axioms they agree with.
    Any politician can do this, but its more more popular with authoritarians than not.

    This is why you have the verbal diarrhea from Duterte, or the endless shitheel behavior of Erdogan. The DC brawl no doubt played well with his rural trogs
    Precisely. As long as Trump keeps giving the racist assholes in Womenarentpeopleville, KA what they want to hear and he's got that ~35% approvale, he can do what the shit he likes. And as long as he keeps delivering tax cuts for the 0,1% and shitting on brown people, the GOP are happy to enable him
    Quote Originally Posted by Keieueue View Post
    I love Malcanis!

  4. #53724
    Alistair's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    13,412
    U.S. National Security Adviser John Bolton on Wednesday said President Donald Trump had decided to withdraw from the optional protocol on dispute resolution to the Vienna Convention in connection with a case challenging the recent embassy move from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

    "This is in connection with a case brought by the so-called State of Palestine naming the United States as a defendant, challenging our move of our embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem," he said at a White House briefing. "I'd like to stress the United States remains a party to the underlying Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and we expect all other parties to abide by their international obligations under the convention."
    Is Trump going to negotiate a better, bigger, GREAT new deal for dispute resolution, that'll be greater, biggerer and better for 'Merica that any deal anyone else has ever got?


  5. #53725
    Lana Torrin's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 13, 2011
    Location
    Bonding around
    Posts
    18,910
    Draining the swamp
    Quote Originally Posted by lubica
    And her name was Limul Azgoden, a lowly peasant girl.

  6. #53726
    Lief Siddhe's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 15, 2011
    Location
    Zagreb, Croatia
    Posts
    6,241
    Drumpf's people are more like swamping the drain atm

  7. #53727
    Donor Sparq's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 11, 2011
    Location
    Strayastan
    Posts
    9,467
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    U.S. National Security Adviser John Bolton on Wednesday said President Donald Trump had decided to withdraw from the optional protocol on dispute resolution to the Vienna Convention in connection with a case challenging the recent embassy move from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

    "This is in connection with a case brought by the so-called State of Palestine naming the United States as a defendant, challenging our move of our embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem," he said at a White House briefing. "I'd like to stress the United States remains a party to the underlying Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and we expect all other parties to abide by their international obligations under the convention."
    Is Trump going to negotiate a better, bigger, GREAT new deal for dispute resolution, that'll be greater, biggerer and better for 'Merica that any deal anyone else has ever got?
    Isn't the "I demand to speak with my embassy!" thing when you get rousted by ze sekret polis whilst on holiday a part of that? Getting rid of it seems like a particularly moronic move.

  8. #53728

    Join Date
    May 31, 2011
    Posts
    4,076
    Quote Originally Posted by helgur View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Jack Coutu View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by helgur View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    I keep reading abourt Prof. Ford that "she has nothing to gain" from her accusations. Many Republicans actually say this as well.

    Let me ask you this:

    If she were to get a shiny new job teaching at say, Yale, or gets a high-paying position as at advocacy group of some kind, or writes a book and gets a 6 figure deal, and options the book for a film about her experiences, would that change your view of what she had to gain?

    Because all of those things might be available to her when this is all over.

    Or does being the woman who single-handedly saved Roe v. Wade from Kavenaugh's vote on the SC count as something to gain?

    How do people define "gain" in this context, because it certainly looks like she could turn her experience into a material amount of money if she choose to do so, could use it for professional advancement, and could be the person who saved women's rights to abortion if Trump never gets his pick on the SC because of the mid-terms.

    That all seems like possible gain to me, so what am I missing here?


    I don't even
    But he's so reasonable and a good conservative!
    Alistair is more reasonable than some people in here (that doesn't qualify you as a shining beacon in itself), but this leaves me genuinely dumbfounded. WTF
    I sadly have to agree with you here.

    @Alistair: if you look at possible gains (and how to define them), you also need to look at possible losses, e.g. constant verbal witch-hunting (or worse) by Trump supporters. And then weigh th one with the other and see if there's a "net gain" possible for this. E.g. if you need to move from state to state (so much for the 'better job' gain), because some lunatics figure out where you live and pose death threats, my personal opinion is that one needs to make a shitload money from books, to make that a positive balance.

  9. #53729
    Donor erichkknaar's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    10,933
    I mean basically, we know now that the R in the evil American parties name clearly stands for Rapist.

    https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/personal-foul/


    Go ahead and vote for the party of rape this November. A vote for R is a vote for Rape.
    meh

  10. #53730
    Alistair's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    13,412
    Quote Originally Posted by Hel OWeen View Post
    @Alistair: if you look at possible gains (and how to define them), you also need to look at possible losses, e.g. constant verbal witch-hunting (or worse) by Trump supporters. And then weigh the one with the other and see if there's a "net gain" possible for this. E.g. if you need to move from state to state (so much for the 'better job' gain), because some lunatics figure out where you live and pose death threats, my personal opinion is that one needs to make a shitload money from books, to make that a positive balance.
    A reasonable post, and I agree.

    Without going into it again, for obvious reasons, I do think human beings are willing to do things for much less gain (fiscally) or for non-fiscal gain (ideological) without thinking through a cost-benefit analysis such as laid out above. For a host of reasons, from passion, to mental illness, to deeply held ideological beliefs to other reasons.

    No, I have no evidence of any kind that is the case with Prof. Ford, nor am I claiming now that I think Prof. Ford falls under this category. I am talking pure theory here.

    But in any theoretical/hypothetical discussion of possible motives of raising an accusation, possible gains, I think it's unwise to take a "there must be no questioning, you may only believe the accuser or shut up" type tact.

    “I’m here to call on folk to understand that in the moral moment there is no, there is no neutral,” Booker claimed. “In a moral moment, there is no bystanders. You are either complicit in the evil, you are either contributing to the wrong or you are fighting against it.”
    "Complicit in evil".

    And this is only one such comment, from a sea of comments. Just look at Erich right above me. Support for (R) is support for Rape. Others have said things along the lines of "women will suffer for decades" under Kavenaugh.

    I believe that human beings will sometimes do things because of the heated rhetoric involved and the high stakes they see in these issues. People do not always properly weigh cost benefit analysis. Hell, most don't.

    As a recent example, a man shot up the Congressional baseball practice. I do not think that man did a cost-benefit analysis before hand, but perhaps he did and (like Erich often advocates for) came to a conclusion that killing (R) was worth whatever happened to him.

    In an evaluation of credibility, this and other possible motivations should be explored, and they usually are in both criminal investigations and in background checks. Presuming every human being acts with perfect logical judgement is foolish in the real world.

    Once again, I am not claiming Prof. Ford came forward for political gain, there is no evidence of any kind that this is the case presented so far. This post is purely a theoretical discussion only.
    Last edited by Alistair; October 4 2018 at 01:45:29 PM.


  11. #53731
    Donor erichkknaar's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    10,933
    Couldn’t have happen to a nicer bunch of people. Maybe people are sick of seeing evil go unpunished.
    meh

  12. #53732

    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    2006
    Posts
    5,009
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Hel OWeen View Post
    @Alistair: if you look at possible gains (and how to define them), you also need to look at possible losses, e.g. constant verbal witch-hunting (or worse) by Trump supporters. And then weigh the one with the other and see if there's a "net gain" possible for this. E.g. if you need to move from state to state (so much for the 'better job' gain), because some lunatics figure out where you live and pose death threats, my personal opinion is that one needs to make a shitload money from books, to make that a positive balance.
    A reasonable post, and I agree.

    Without going into it again, for obvious reasons, I do think human beings are willing to do things for much less gain (fiscally) or for non-fiscal gain (ideological) without thinking through a cost-benefit analysis such as laid out above. For a host of reasons, from passion, to mental illness, to deeply held ideological beliefs to other reasons.

    No, I have no evidence of any kind that is the case with Prof. Ford, nor am I claiming now that I think Prof. Ford falls under this category. I am talking pure theory here.

    But in any theoretical/hypothetical discussion of possible motives of raising an accusation, possible gains, I think it's unwise to take a "there must be no questioning, you may only believe the accuser or shut up" type tact.

    “I’m here to call on folk to understand that in the moral moment there is no, there is no neutral,” Booker claimed. “In a moral moment, there is no bystanders. You are either complicit in the evil, you are either contributing to the wrong or you are fighting against it.”
    "Complicit in evil".

    And this is only one such comment, from a sea of comments. Just look at Erich right above me. Support for (R) is support for Rape. Others have said things along the lines of "women will suffer for decades" under Kavenaugh.

    I believe that human beings will sometimes do things because of the heated rhetoric involved and the high stakes they see in these issues. People do not always properly weigh cost benefit analysis. Hell, most don't.

    As a recent example, a man shot up the Congressional baseball practice. I do not think that man did a cost-benefit analysis before hand, but perhaps he did and (like Erich often advocates for) came to a conclusion that killing (R) was worth whatever happened to him.

    In an evaluation of credibility, this and other possible motivations should be explored, and they usually are in both criminal investigations and in background checks. Presuming every human being acts with perfect logical judgement is foolish in the real world.

    Once again, I am not claiming Prof. Ford came forward for political gain, there is no evidence of any kind that this is the case presented so far. This post is purely a theoretical discussion only.
    Seems like a waste of time at best, or an intentional distraction from the meat of the subject at worst.

    You have to be aware how this looks to everyone familiar with the project/deflect/deny tactics of social media propagandists.

  13. #53733

    Join Date
    July 14, 2013
    Posts
    1,685
    This post is purely a theoretical discussion only.
    This is the kind of rhetoric used by people disingenuously questioning things like the Holocaust.

    This is why it gets the reactions that it does. "What if?" And "I'm just asking questions" are common strategies for people advocating for some really heinous shit, things that you can't come right out and say (like "she's a liar, she's getting paid off") so they have to maintain some deniability. "What if she's a liar who's getting paid."

    We can't see inside your head to know what your motives are. So instead people are going to say, "well, it walks like a duck and it quacks like a duck."
    Totally not Victoria Stecker forgetting his password and not having access to his work email.

  14. #53734
    Alistair's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    13,412
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicholai Pestot View Post
    Seems like a waste of time at best, or an intentional distraction from the meat of the subject at worst.
    I'm sorry you feel that way, but as I've said, A. I enjoy political/social theory talk and most of my posts are in that vein. And B. FHC may think it's a distraction, but FHC is seemingly choosing to ignore that agencies like the FBI when investigating will ask these questions too.

    No one is coming to FHC to form their socio-political ideals based on my posts, so any "distraction" I post is irrelevant, same as Erich's "kill all the (R)" posts. Posts which, amazingly, get far less note or criticism than my posts, lol. I guess mass murder is less objectionable than what I post.

    There are times I simply don't understand the people here. Maybe I am as stupid as Isy and Xenosis say I am. Who knows.

    Aaaaand, now I'm a holocaust denier equivalent too.

    Ok.


  15. #53735

    Join Date
    August 18, 2014
    Posts
    181
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Hel OWeen View Post
    @Alistair: if you look at possible gains (and how to define them), you also need to look at possible losses, e.g. constant verbal witch-hunting (or worse) by Trump supporters. And then weigh the one with the other and see if there's a "net gain" possible for this. E.g. if you need to move from state to state (so much for the 'better job' gain), because some lunatics figure out where you live and pose death threats, my personal opinion is that one needs to make a shitload money from books, to make that a positive balance.
    A reasonable post, and I agree.

    Without going into it again, for obvious reasons, I do think human beings are willing to do things for much less gain (fiscally) or for non-fiscal gain (ideological) without thinking through a cost-benefit analysis such as laid out above. For a host of reasons, from passion, to mental illness, to deeply held ideological beliefs to other reasons.

    No, I have no evidence of any kind that is the case with Prof. Ford, nor am I claiming now that I think Prof. Ford falls under this category. I am talking pure theory here.

    But in any theoretical/hypothetical discussion of possible motives of raising an accusation, possible gains, I think it's unwise to take a "there must be no questioning, you may only believe the accuser or shut up" type tact.

    “I’m here to call on folk to understand that in the moral moment there is no, there is no neutral,” Booker claimed. “In a moral moment, there is no bystanders. You are either complicit in the evil, you are either contributing to the wrong or you are fighting against it.”
    "Complicit in evil".

    And this is only one such comment, from a sea of comments. Just look at Erich right above me. Support for (R) is support for Rape. Others have said things along the lines of "women will suffer for decades" under Kavenaugh.

    I believe that human beings will sometimes do things because of the heated rhetoric involved and the high stakes they see in these issues. People do not always properly weigh cost benefit analysis. Hell, most don't.

    As a recent example, a man shot up the Congressional baseball practice. I do not think that man did a cost-benefit analysis before hand, but perhaps he did and (like Erich often advocates for) came to a conclusion that killing (R) was worth whatever happened to him.

    In an evaluation of credibility, this and other possible motivations should be explored, and they usually are in both criminal investigations and in background checks. Presuming every human being acts with perfect logical judgement is foolish in the real world.

    Once again, I am not claiming Prof. Ford came forward for political gain, there is no evidence of any kind that this is the case presented so far. This post is purely a theoretical discussion only.
    Perhaps you can look internally for an answer then; the rest of us have moved on from her motivation behind testifying to the behavior and demeanor of the person actually applying for the job.

  16. #53736
    Malcanis's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 12, 2011
    Posts
    14,467
    Quote Originally Posted by erichkknaar View Post
    I mean basically, we know now that the R in the evil American parties name clearly stands for Rapist.

    https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/personal-foul/


    Go ahead and vote for the party of rape this November. A vote for R is a vote for Rape.
    They're not all Rapists. Some are just Racists!
    Quote Originally Posted by Keieueue View Post
    I love Malcanis!

  17. #53737

    Join Date
    May 31, 2011
    Posts
    4,076
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    No one is coming to FHC to form their socio-political ideals based on my posts, so any "distraction" I post is irrelevant, same as Erich's "kill all the (R)" posts. Posts which, amazingly, get far less note or criticism than my posts, lol. I guess mass murder is less objectionable than what I post.
    Fully agree with that part. For whatever reason - you've made yourself some "friends" here, who blindly dismiss all of your posts as BS. As someone stated a bit earlier here: one might agree with your opinion on a topic or not. But when it comes to "shitposting", there are far worse posters who receive way less complaints about their posts than you.

  18. #53738
    XenosisMk4's Avatar
    Join Date
    July 13, 2017
    Location
    More turbo-lightspeed neoliberal platitudes/virtue signaling/misplaced priorities on full display.
    Posts
    4,849
    Shitposter is just a label for people who's views you don't agree with

  19. #53739
    Bartholomeus Crane's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    7,703
    Quote Originally Posted by Alistair View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicholai Pestot View Post
    Seems like a waste of time at best, or an intentional distraction from the meat of the subject at worst.
    I'm sorry you feel that way, but as I've said, A. I enjoy political/social theory talk and most of my posts are in that vein. And B. FHC may think it's a distraction, but FHC is seemingly choosing to ignore that agencies like the FBI when investigating will ask these questions too.

    No one is coming to FHC to form their socio-political ideals based on my posts, so any "distraction" I post is irrelevant, same as Erich's "kill all the (R)" posts. Posts which, amazingly, get far less note or criticism than my posts, lol. I guess mass murder is less objectionable than what I post.

    There are times I simply don't understand the people here. Maybe I am as stupid as Isy and Xenosis say I am. Who knows.

    Aaaaand, now I'm a holocaust denier equivalent too.

    Ok.
    The question remains then: do you think Kavanaugh should be on the SCOTUS or not?
    Quote Originally Posted by Miep View Post
    ...i have no idea whats realy going on...

  20. #53740
    Alistair's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Posts
    13,412
    Quote Originally Posted by Ego Proxy View Post
    Perhaps you can look internally for an answer then; the rest of us have moved on from her motivation behind testifying to the behavior and demeanor of the person actually applying for the job.
    I don't need to worry about him, in real terms or theoretical, for the simple reason that I had already reached an opinion on Kavenaugh. I don't support him. And I already know where all of FHC stands on that as well.

    I think he lied under oath. While I may understand the tough spot he was put in, either lie (disqualifying) about his HS/College partying, or admit he drank as a kid and have the Dems label him a rapist for it, it does not excuse it whatsoever. Judges do not lie under oath, and if they do, it's disqualifying.

    I think he IS a vote to repeal Roe v. Wade, and we don't support that ideal, so I do not support him on policy/legal grounds either.

    And while I found much of his lambasting the of the Dems on the panel 100% valid (see the aforemention "complicit in evil" quote by Booker), that is simply not the mentality I want in a non-partisan judge, regardless of if he feels attacked or unjustly accused or the like. He could have defended his "good name" without making it partisan, which simply exposed his partisanship. If he could not control himself on that point, I cannot trust him to control his partisanship on court cases.

    And if he did what he is accused of, and the evidence supported it, there is no theory to dicsuss. He could choose to try and defend it (I was young, I was drunk, she was into it I thought, I've changed, whatever excuses you prefer) and that could be debated by the Senate who would vote accordingly, but if he did it and lied it's an obvious disqualifier. There nothing to theory debate there.
    Last edited by Alistair; October 4 2018 at 03:47:57 PM.


Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •