|
evilweasel posted:to be fair, there are some people saying it who are probably smart in certain respects but are being intentionally stupid because they are deliberately lying. for example i have no actual knowledge if hugh hewitt is dumb or smart, because he considers his job as simply to brazenly lie in support of the republican party and being intentionally stupid is frequently a good way to do that. i actually sort of assume he's not as stupid as he seems because his stupidity is always the exact type of stupidity needed to get to the conclusion he wants. that's true. in the case of bret stephens he threw a tantrum when nate silver pointed out how stupid his take was and tried to defend himself by saying how the gop waves were bigger (ignoring that the dem majorities at the time were 20ish seats larger than the gop majority was this time). https://twitter.com/BretStephensNYT/status/1060727768151924736
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 17:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 07:40 |
|
|
lizardman posted:I see this kind of naked, spiteful jealousy EVERYWHERE these days and it's baffling. Whenever someone does a good thing someone else runs in chiming "Don't give that person credit, because {unrelated bad thing or apparent lack of doing other unrelated good things}!" Like that person complaining at a gathering for the victims of the Orlando night club shooting in 2016 that people were there "for gay people" and not "for latinos". I'm not sure when it became de rigueur to do this kind of thing but it really is lovely. The left has always been this way, which is why every primary season ends with a bunch of leftists bitching that their top issue isn't the top issue of whoever won.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 17:56
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:nothing that we're discussing has involved morality, and i can only assume that you're trying to inject that here because you realize how tremendously stupid the "Things are only Good or Bad" argument is but can't make your argument without it. i understand your point perfectly, which is why i was able to identify the precise brand of stupidity animating it. nothing we're discussing has involved morality, i say, as I accuse my opponents of being incapable of seeing the good in the wealthy being proclaimed beyond legal ramifications of their actions
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 17:57
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:This is such a disingenuous take. You’re basically admitting to putting words in other people’s mouths but it’s OK because you decided that’s what they mean anyway. Saying that "your argument boils down to this fundamentally stupid argument" is not putting words in your mouth: it is drawing out the underlying meaning of the words so that it can be more accurately examined. And that underlying meaning is dumb. People saying that "the rule of law has been dying before Trump" as a reason not to care about the Mueller investigation and the general principle of keeping Trump from exerting direct control over the DOJ is, precisely, demanding that we capitulate to that control because you're whining that people care about it. Context matters: like I said before, it is an unarguable fact our elections are not fair and neither is our democracy. Saying that is saying correct facts. However, if you were to say that in response to Trump abolishing elections, you would be excusing it: "why do you care, our elections haven't been fair" is both repeating a true fact and using it in a stupid way.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 17:57
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:people sermoning about the Rule of Law right now are saying "do not make it worse". an independent DOJ doesn't need to be inherently good in all circumstances for it to not be trivially obvious that an independent DOJ is miles better than a DOJ under the personal control of trump. With respect to the President's personal relationship to the law, it's not a matter of "making it worse." It already happened. Ford cemented it when he pardoned Nixon - the State will not use violence to enforce the law against someone who is or has been President. Won't happen. This is why Trump hasn't fired Mueller in the first place - it's been made clear to him that nothing will happen to him, and if they try to do something to him they'll fail. If you've got a pile of crimes and you see an opening, run for President. Barring a collapse of total order you'll never see the inside of a cell. That's why I hate how much oxygen the Mueller show sucks up and why I resent the people for whom it's the thing that gets them out on the streets. The status quo they're fighting for a return to has never existed. Whatever percentage of Rule of Law we lose by having the President be above it is long gone and Mueller isn't going to bring it back. He put Manafort behind bars(good!), might do the same to Jr and Stone (great!), but absolutely nothing is going to happen to Trump himself and it's going to break so many brains that should know better.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 17:58
|
|
|
The corrupt institutions are what let Trump come to power in the first place, appealing to them to save you is less than useless. Even if they somehow gave him the boot the underlying problem would still be there and another Trump would show up very shortly. This does not mean "do nothing", it means stop thinking that the rich will willingly secede power because this has never happened in the history of civilization. evilweasel posted:Saying that "your argument boils down to this fundamentally stupid argument" is not putting words in your mouth: it is drawing out the underlying meaning of the words so that it can be more accurately examined. No, it's changing the argument so that you can more easily refute it, because the ACTUAL contents of the argument aren't something you're willing to deal with
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 17:58
|
|
|
The Glumslinger posted:This is a galaxy brain take Lote posted:I would like to point out that Jill Stein is a Harvard medical school trained internal medicine doctor and she is anti-vaxx. Let me be clear, I did not say that as a "don't bother getting the flu shot!" take. Only as an explanation for why so many people have this anecdotal "The flu shot gave me the flu!" bullshit. It is literally impossible for a flu shot to give you the flu.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 17:59
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Saying that "your argument boils down to this fundamentally stupid argument" is not putting words in your mouth: it is drawing out the underlying meaning of the words so that it can be more accurately examined. quote:However, if you were to say that in response to Trump abolishing elections, you would be excusing it: "why do you care, our elections haven't been fair" is both repeating a true fact and using it in a stupid way. not putting words in people's mouths. just laying out the words that I feel like they should have said instead.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 18:00
|
|
|
It seems to be that the vast majority of people don't actually know what the flu is because may of them haven't had it, and equate it with a normal cold. So they get the flu vaccine and then they catch a regular winter cold and cough and sniffle for a few days, griping because they think they now have the flu. Most people don't realize that the actual flu knocks people - even young healthy people! - the gently caress out.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 18:01
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/ddale8/status/1060939260612755456
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 18:01
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1060938144336367616
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 18:02
|
|
|
What fresh hell is this? Is he actually sending lawyers or just bragging on twitter?
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 18:02
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:Saying that "your argument boils down to this fundamentally stupid argument" is not putting words in your mouth: it is drawing out the underlying meaning of the words so that it can be more accurately examined. And that underlying meaning is dumb. People saying that "the rule of law has been dying before Trump" as a reason not to care about the Mueller investigation and the general principle of keeping Trump from exerting direct control over the DOJ is, precisely, demanding that we capitulate to that control because you're whining that people care about it. Context matters: like I said before, it is an unarguable fact our elections are not fair and neither is our democracy. Saying that is saying correct facts. However, if you were to say that in response to Trump abolishing elections, you would be excusing it: "why do you care, our elections haven't been fair" is both repeating a true fact and using it in a stupid way. And when posters directly say “no we’re not saying capitulate we’re saying trying to rally people to defend the rule of law is historically ineffective” you just dismiss it as stupid and declare what they really meant was capitulate.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 18:02
|
|
|
Gonna send those lawyers to Georgia too?
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 18:03
|
|
|
This sounds like a job for...GIULIANI-MAN!!!!!!
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 18:03
|
|
|
Trump should be relieved, honestly. We're terrible at stealing elections and he's our best.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 18:03
|
|
|
Fritz Coldcockin posted:This sounds like a job for...GIULIANI-MAN!!!!!! *puts on cape and crumbled, withering understanding of the law*
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 18:04
|
|
|
Gonna send his"Top Men" Rudy and uhhhhhhhh
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 18:04
|
|
|
TheScott2K posted:With respect to the President's personal relationship to the law, it's not a matter of "making it worse." It already happened. Ford cemented it when he pardoned Nixon - the State will not use violence to enforce the law against someone who is or has been President. Won't happen. It's more about the rich than presidential status, hence why you had the Clintons palling around with Trump and Obama off windsurfing while the republicans were looting the country, only speaking up to direct the DNC towards centrism and yelling at foreign socialists To the financial elite, this is all just a game. They will immediately close ranks and form a united front if the rich might start facing consequences, outside of sacrificial lambs that have outlived their usefulness like Manafort. This usually results in the election of a fascist, since between socialism and nazis the wealthy will choose nazis 100% of the time. This is why Democrats have gone on-record to say that even if they could impeach Trump, they wouldn't.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 18:05
|
|
|
O poo poo, Trump is sending his good friends Phoenix Wright and Leonard J Krabs to LOCK EM UP
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 18:05
|
|
|
Failed Imagineer posted:O poo poo, Trump is sending his good friends Phoenix Wright and Leonard J Krabs to LOCK EM UP More like Barry Zuckerkorn and Saul Goodman.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 18:06
|
|
|
Fritz Coldcockin posted:More like Barry Zuckerkorn and Saul Goodman. Saul Goodman is a hell of a lawyer, though
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 18:07
|
|
|
Fritz Coldcockin posted:More like Barry Zuckerkorn and Saul Goodman. Florida is nearly surrounded by water, they need a lawyer who is an expert in maritime law.....might I suggest Chereth Cutestory?
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 18:07
|
|
|
Crow Jane posted:Saul Goodman is a hell of a lawyer, though So is Leonard J. Krabs, Esq. He's kept this website up and running and free of legal entanglements for 20 years  Mahoning posted:Florida is nearly surrounded by water, they need a lawyer who is an expert in maritime law.....might I suggest Chereth Cutestory? "When asked to comment on the next step in the Florida recount situation, he replied 'YOU'RE A CROOK, CAPTAIN HOOK...JUDGE, WON'T YOU THROW THE BOOK?'" Fritz Coldcockin fucked around with this message at 18:13 on Nov 9, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 18:08
|
|
|
TheScott2K posted:Trump should be relieved, honestly. We're terrible at stealing elections and he's our best. Yeah, he should be relieved... from duty.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 18:10
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 18:10
|
|
|
Failed Imagineer posted:O poo poo, Trump is sending his good friends Phoenix Wright and Leonard J Krabs to LOCK EM UP please do not gently caress with phoenix wright, he's never lost a case
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 18:11
|
|
|
Uncle Jack from "It's Always Sunny." (also Charlie because Bird Law will come into play somehow)
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 18:12
|
|
|
the president making poo poo up out of nothing gives me a constant migraine.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 18:12
|
|
|
Doctor Butts posted:Oh so the choices are either isolationism or full interventionism? Drone strike a reasonable middle-of-the-road number of weddings and schools
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 18:13
|
|
|
TheScott2K posted:With respect to the President's personal relationship to the law, it's not a matter of "making it worse." It already happened. Ford cemented it when he pardoned Nixon - the State will not use violence to enforce the law against someone who is or has been President. Won't happen. This is why Trump hasn't fired Mueller in the first place - it's been made clear to him that nothing will happen to him, and if they try to do something to him they'll fail. If you've got a pile of crimes and you see an opening, run for President. Barring a collapse of total order you'll never see the inside of a cell. The factual premises here are all factually untrue, most flagrantly in the case of why Trump has not fired Mueller. It's just not a sustainable argument to claim Trump actually believes he has nothing to fear from Mueller because not a single action he's taken about the Mueller investigation - or its predecessor, the FBI investigation that lead Trump to fire Comey - fits with that narrative. Especially his rage over it being allowed to continue being the sole reason he fired Sessions, the person who is otherwise the most perfect AG for Trump in every respect but that willingness to end the Mueller investigation. He has not fired Mueller because he has been convinced there will be negative consequences to doing so. But you're now making the argument explicitly that things are Bad, and therefore they cannot get worse - a characterization other people have been trying to deny is what you're actually saying. And that's wrong: things can definitely get worse. There was a significant public backlash to Nixon (and most specifically, the backlash against the "Saturday Night Massacre") that was, in large part, why this custom of the independence of the DOJ arose. It's why every President since Reagan (including Reagan) other than Obama has faced some sort of criminal investigation directed at the White House that either did expose potential criminal wrongdoing of the President or that was believed to potentially expose criminal wrongdoing of the President. Reagan and Bush had Iran-Contra (which Bush's outgoing pardons of everyone involved - other than himself - interfered with and significantly damaged the idea the President was not above the rule of law, but was hard to deal with because he did it only as a lame duck and using the pardon power). Clinton had the Whitewater investigation that kept morphing into different investigations until it turned into the Lewinsky investigation. Bush II had the Plame investigation. None of those Presidents sought to repeat the Saturday Night Massacre until Trump - through firing Comey - and that produced what is the sole apparent example of Republicans actually acting as a check on Trump. Both Bush I and Bush II interfered with those investigations via the pardon power, which is a separate abuse that needs to be dealt with (and has been identified previously as a major issue that Trump is also exploiting) and has cropped up consistently due to the practice of lame-duck presidential pardons, once the President can no longer face political consequences. All of that is a longwinded way of saying yes, the principle that the President is not above the law has not been enforced to the fullest. But it is not a binary, either Enforced or Not Enforced, and it has operated as a check on the President's ability to end investigations that might target them. It is factually wrong and historically ignorant to suggest that it is simply dead and there is no additional damage that can be done by allowing a Mueller firing or another way of terminating the investigation.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 18:13
|
|
|
http://twitter.com/PatriciaMazzei/status/1060940164615360512
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 18:13
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Uncle Jack from "It's Always Sunny." Trump'll prosecute windmill manufacturers for killing ALL OF YOUR BIRDS
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 18:14
|
|
|
Lock up...Hillary clinton?
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 18:15
|
|
|
Trump's NLRB recently ruled union picketing illegal http://inthesetimes.com/working/entry/21530/trump_nlrb_union_pickets_illegal_labor_joint_employer I would like to believe that #resistance liberals will take this up and make it a major issue, but I know in my heart they wont
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 18:15
|
|
|
Yinlock posted:It's more about the rich than presidential status, hence why you had the Clintons palling around with Trump and Obama off windsurfing while the republicans were looting the country, only speaking up to direct the DNC towards centrism and yelling at foreign socialists this is another dumb, obviously factually wrong claim from people who are saying dumb things. the core reason that Democrats have gone on record to say that they don't intend to impeach trump immediately (which is what they've actually said, not that "even if they could") is that even if they passed a bill of impeachment the senate would not convict.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 18:16
|
|
|
I've never seen photos like these before. I can easily picture Trump's supporters doing the same thing. https://twitter.com/ElishevaAvital/status/1060914913328148480 EDIT: Thread Reader version... https://twitter.com/threadreaderapp/status/1060940413064884226
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 18:16
|
|
|
Chomskyan posted:Trump's NLRB recently ruled union picketing illegal You shouldn't claim defeat before you even try.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 18:17
|
|
|
Chomskyan posted:Trump's NLRB recently ruled union picketing illegal This is absurd. People picket at their place of work. You aren't having Walmart workers driving out to wherever the HQ is to picket on their front steps.
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 18:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 07:40 |
|
|
This is my real problem with the #resistance types. Their causes, like defending the Mueller investigation (which will lead to nothing), suck oxygen out of potential protest movements that could be impactful, and could change our society for the better. Instead they choose to use that energy to prop up wholly compromised institutions like the FBI and Justice Department
|
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2018 18:18
|
|