|
LeeMajors posted:Listen, friend-o, do you want to be a fuckin communist or do you want to land on the moon? Hilariously, the moon landing was a triumph of central planning and a command economy
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2018 06:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 10:06 |
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Now that PPJ is no longer posting twitter roundups this thread isn't worth reading. i've been slightly busy, i'll start back up sometime this week
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2018 06:49
|
|
|
this is good news though, i think, pretty much expected because the new asylum policy was just as poorly rolled out as every other new policy https://twitter.com/ZoeTillman/status/1064756266705317893
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2018 06:54
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:But CHUDs take each other seriously and when they do that death threats tend to happen, so it’s not like there is zero harm just because “lol pissbabies” oh sure, I was just saying half-jokingly that it'd be hard to win a defamation case against a known moron. the tort exists to protect people's economic well-being from being hurt because of lies, death threats are a different matter entirely
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2018 07:02
|
|
|
Not a Step posted:Hilariously, the moon landing was a triumph of central planning and a command economy This always irks me in regards to Space-X as well. People keep holding them up as an example of the free market doing what the government couldn’t, but really they just sucked a ton of money out of NASA to blow up a ton of soviet rockets they bought for cheap. The landing thing was cool, but unless they can show that it actually saves any money then it’s also a pointless PR stunt. I’ll maybe change my mind if they can get a human-certified launch vehicle, but that’s probably five years out at minimum.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2018 07:08
|
|
|
Dapper_Swindler posted:thats my guess/hope. whittaker is talker and a loud dipshit, but he seems like the type that would be cowed by telling him the full on harsh truth and telling him "do you really want to be the next Bork". Well, considering the last Bork got the job....
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2018 07:10
|
|
|
eke out posted:this is good news though, i think, pretty much expected because the new asylum policy was just as poorly rolled out as every other new policy bullshit, i expect an immediate lifting of the injunction based on the carefully conceptualized, eloquently worded, and above all meticulously prepped for legal validity arguments of the Trump administration
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2018 07:10
|
|
|
Skippy McPants posted:
Abolish Econ 101 (and probably 201, too). GreyjoyBastard posted:bullshit, i expect an immediate lifting of the injunction based on the carefully conceptualized, eloquently worded, and above all meticulously prepped for legal validity arguments of the Trump administration If "But Brown" was good enough for the founding fathers, it should be good enough for anyone... Stickman fucked around with this message at 07:15 on Nov 20, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2018 07:13
|
|
|
goethe.cx posted:i don't think anyone could successfully sue jacob wohl for defamation, because defamation requires that the plaintiff's reputation is harmed, and this would require a critical mass of people taking jacob wohl seriously goethe.cx posted:oh sure, I was just saying half-jokingly that it'd be hard to win a defamation case against a known moron. the tort exists to protect people's economic well-being from being hurt because of lies, death threats are a different matter entirely this gives me an opportunity to post probably my favorite Ken Popehat blog bit, before he decided (correctly) that it was easier to do a weekly-ish half-hour podcast than to write blog articles https://www.popehat.com/2016/04/19/a-brief-review-of-cheryl-jacobus-defamation-suit-against-donald-trump-and-corey-lewandowski/ quote:In defamation law, there's a popular philosophical question: can someone be "defamation-proof"? That is, can someone's reputation be so awful that no falsehood can make it any worse? There's a flip-side of this as well: can someone be so notoriously full of poo poo that they are incapable of defamation, because no reasonable person familiar with them would interpret anything they say as provable fact? This is what I call the batshit crazy rule and the Ninth Circuit more decorously refers to as "general tenor of the entire work." I think Trump — or at least Trump on Twitter — presents a good test case of the batshit crazy rule. Trump's Twitter behavior is such a legendary dumpster fire that I think Jacobus will find it very difficult to argue that anyone familiar with it would take what he says as a statement of fact. Sad! and then later he followed up, triumphantly and probably with a mixture of smugness, sorrow, and rage, that a federal judge issued a decision that, basically, his assessment of the president's Twitter posts was upheld explicitly by a judge
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2018 07:14
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:and then later he followed up, triumphantly and probably with a mixture of smugness, sorrow, and rage, that a federal judge issued a decision that, basically, his assessment of the president's Twitter posts was upheld explicitly by a judge Imagine being the Trump/government lawyer being paid to say in a court of law that the president of the united states is such a compulsive liar that what he says should and is ignored out of hand
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2018 07:16
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:and then later he followed up, triumphantly and probably with a mixture of smugness, sorrow, and rage, that a federal judge issued a decision that, basically, his assessment of the president's Twitter posts was upheld explicitly by a judge Wouldn't the fact that a non-insignificant proportion of the population does, in fact, believe Trump's bullshit, be an argument against that? Or are Trump supporters automatically "unreasonable" in the eyes of the court (which, I suppose, is reasonable itself)?
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2018 07:18
|
|
|
cheetah7071 posted:Imagine being the Trump/government lawyer being paid to say in a court of law that the president of the united states is such a compulsive liar that what he says should and is ignored out of hand this is basically a dream job
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2018 07:18
|
|
|
Stickman posted:Wouldn't the fact that a non-insignificant proportion of the population does, in fact, believe Trump's bullshit, be an argument against that? Or are Trump supporters automatically "unreasonable" in the eyes of the court (which, I suppose, is reasonable itself)? it is my understanding that in American defamation law there is a difference between "reasonable people would consider this a statement of fact, and it is a false statement" (defamation) and "credulous insane morons would consider this a statement of fact, and it is a false statement" (not defamation) which is extremely fortunate for eg Alex Jones
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2018 07:19
|
|
|
Stickman posted:Wouldn't the fact that a non-insignificant proportion of the population does, in fact, believe Trump's bullshit, be an argument against that? Or are Trump supporters automatically "unreasonable" in the eyes of the court (which, I suppose, is reasonable itself)? that's a pretty old post and the Summer Zervos case is alive and well so it seems like Trump straight-up saying someone is a liar who manufactured a story against him just to get media attention, in collaboration with his political enemies, is still probably defamation but a lot of lesser cases have failed GreyjoyBastard posted:it is my understanding that in American defamation law there is a difference between "reasonable people would consider this a statement of fact, and it is a false statement" (defamation) and "credulous insane morons would consider this a statement of fact, and it is a false statement" (not defamation) the "reasonable person" and the idea that tests that ask "would a reasonable person do ____?" are 'objective" is among the silliest of all legal fictions, and More Perfect did a great episode about it that treated it with the level of scorn it deserves eke out fucked around with this message at 07:24 on Nov 20, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2018 07:21
|
|
|
eke out posted:that's a pretty old post and the Summer Zervos case is alive and well so it seems like Trump straight-up saying someone is a liar who manufactured a story against him just to get media attention, in collaboration with his political enemies, is still probably defamation specifically, the one that got shot down was something like Donald Trump saying "actually she begged me for a job and I turned her down, sadbad! now she mad!" fake edit: actually it was in that very Jacobus case https://www.popehat.com/2017/01/18/the-latest-defamation-case-against-donald-trump-and-the-trump-defense/ quote:The trial court in Jacobus' case actually relied upon something like that argument in dismissing her case, though in considerably more genteel terms. Any putative factual statement by or on behalf of Trump, the court said, has to be taken in the context of the way Trump habitually acts, which cuts against a literal interpretation:
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2018 07:26
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:specifically, the one that got shot down was something like Donald Trump saying "actually she begged me for a job and I turned her down, sadbad! now she mad!" the recent stormy daniels one lost too, although you could argue that that one came down more to Texas's robust anti-SLAPP law i need to check on that one because it's where Charles Harder requested a fuckin hilarious amount of money in lawyers fees e: hearing set for 11/26 on the fees (Avenatti argues that Harder should only be given $25,000, rather than $350,000 Harder hilariously requested), and the merits ruling is being appealed to the 9th eke out fucked around with this message at 07:33 on Nov 20, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2018 07:29
|
|
|
Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:A big win in FL The Democrats need to run women everywhere possible
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2018 07:36
|
|
|
my bony fealty posted:The Democrats need to run women everywhere possible A pink hat is superimposed in the foggy sky by a spotlight atop Gotham Central. The new recruits say she is just a myth, the last reported sighting was two months ago, approximately a decade under the new laws of time and space that took hold and gave us No Man’s Land on 1/20. But Commissioner Gordon is unperturbed, serene. He can feel the change in his mustache. After all this time, Gotham is ready. Ready for Hillary. yronic heroism fucked around with this message at 07:47 on Nov 20, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2018 07:44
|
|
|
eke out posted:the recent stormy daniels one lost too, although you could argue that that one came down more to Texas's robust anti-SLAPP law ken popehat thinks the 350k is high but not completely nutso, under the circumstances #federalprosecutorprivilege ?
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2018 07:47
|
|
|
Stereotype posted:This always irks me in regards to Space-X as well. People keep holding them up as an example of the free market doing what the government couldn’t, but really they just sucked a ton of money out of NASA to blow up a ton of soviet rockets they bought for cheap. Space X and Amazon guy's rocket are a lot less endearing when you realize it's billionaires investing in escape pods from Earth.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2018 07:50
|
|
|
Ok. So, this is a total snipe, but that’s how I roll apparently. My mom is someone who was recently forced into retirement, and has little better to do than watch MSNBC and CNN. She got some “Where is Jamal Khashoggi?” T-shirt’s, and wears them occasionally. She tried to pawn some them off on me and my wife. Today I stopped by her house with a new joke I told my very republican in-laws “he’s in our gas tanks, just like the hundreds of thousands of brown people who died in America’s recent wars”. Naturally she started crying and I felt like an rear end in a top hat, but she told me a story about how a right wing couple stopped her while wearing one of those shirts, to say “ooh he was cut up and is gone forever”. Her reply was “well on tv they can find people who’ve been thrown through a wood chipper and spread across a field!”. Of course they were very much ready to say “oh well tv is just pretend”, which begs so many questions... like one I thought up after I left my moms house: Do we care what happened to him? We don’t do we. We could get dna from a bone chip, or we could rely on the CIA reports, but the Saudi royal family was found to have funded the 9-11 terrorists by the 9-11 commission report. So... We don’t care, do we. Trump is right.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2018 08:04
|
|
|
Stickman posted:Abolish Econ 101 (and probably 201, too). I think most people go through this cycle where they first think giving developing nations jobs making shoes or whatever is good. Then they learn about the horrors of sweatshops, and thats bad. Then they learn some basic economics and hear about supply and demand and comparative advantage and decide sweatshops are, in fact, good because it leverages the cheap labor supply and provides money not otherwise available. I want to say advanced economics then deconstructs that to swing back around to 'sweatshops bad' but it really doesn't unless you take a narrow subset of classes focusing on labor exploitation (as a bad thing). I think the only insulation is learning (real) history and getting into ethnography of the quality of life before and after labor exploitation and industrialization. Plus Econ 101/201 fuels infinite bad takes about supply and demand, inflation, and dumb poo poo about balancing budgets. So in short, abolish Econ 101 and 201 and make History, Civics and Sociology prerequisites for Economics majors.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2018 08:05
|
|
|
Solvent posted:We don’t care, do we. *We* care, but we're deranged extremely online posters on a dead gay comedy forum, and we (or at least I) mostly only care because of what it says about the state of US/Saudi relations, the relative power and position of the media, the seeming immunity to law of the very powerful, and the further madness of our orange shame. About the actual flesh and blood dude? I don't know the guy, he's a symbol at best. I hope his family is taken care of and his remains get whatever disposal method he would have preferred, I guess, but I feel that way about basically everyone.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2018 08:13
|
|
|
Yeah. I think that was the point of my joke. We don’t care, and the “We” that does, is pinched hard enough to make him a symbol, but not really enough to do anything else.  We forgot. E: without having read it, I think it makes your point too. About Econ and so on. We forgot. Solvent fucked around with this message at 08:25 on Nov 20, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2018 08:21
|
|
|
Solvent posted:Yeah. I think that was the point of my joke. So it's basically this again: 
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2018 09:08
|
|
|
Solvent posted:We could get dna from a bone chip, or we could rely on the CIA reports, but the Saudi royal family was found to have funded the 9-11 terrorists by the 9-11 commission report. The 9-11 commission report concluded "We have seen no evidence that any foreign government – or foreign government official – supplied any funding." but there is other evidence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_for_the_September_11_attacks#Financing_the_attacks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alleged_Saudi_role_in_September_11_attacks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_Against_Sponsors_of_Terrorism_Act https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/911-saudi-government-embassy-dry-run-hijacks-lawsuit-cockpit-security-a7938791.html  We have that AUMF "That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons." so the only thing stopping us from being technically at war with them is the president continually determining they provided no aid Tangentially related: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...m=.6a3041c79986 galenanorth fucked around with this message at 10:16 on Nov 20, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2018 09:46
|
|
|
Quick pop in on the Avenatti TRO: Initial filings are evaluted based solely on the petitioner's application. These are typically granted unless it's entirely without merit or not relating to domestic violence. Hearing is set in roughly three weeks, and the standard is preponderance of the evidence (think balancing a set of scales, whoever it tilts for wins). This is not a difficult standard to reach and can be entirely based on the petitioner's testimony alone. That said this is going to end up a long drawn out trial because lol at the idea of Avenatti trying to settle like he should. Avenatti is doing himself no favors and needs to shut up, but frankly I figure he did it. Even in the best light he's been a poo poo, just a poo poo being a poo poo at someone everyone wanted to be shat on. Eminent Domain fucked around with this message at 10:19 on Nov 20, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2018 10:08
|
|
|
Eminent Domain posted:Quick pop in on the Avenatti TRO: Didnt Trump have an active lawsuit against his scam university during the primary? Being a sex pest and scam artist is no barrier to running in TYOOL 2018, and at the very least makes the inevitable book deal that much spicier. You could say that excusing sex pests is a Republican thing and good Democrats won't stand for it, but, uh, Hillary actively defended her sex pest husband and slammed his accusers repeatedly and people were and are #StillWithHer E: This is in no way to condone Basta being, in all likelihood, an abusive poo poo. vvv Yeah Basta is going to have no end of defenders Nix Panicus fucked around with this message at 10:46 on Nov 20, 2018 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2018 10:24
|
|
|
Not a Step posted:Didnt Trump have an active lawsuit against his scam university during the primary? Being a sex pest and scam artist is no barrier to running in TYOOL 2018, and at the very least makes the inevitable book deal that much spicier. You could say that excusing sex pests is a Republican thing and good Democrats won't stand for it, but, uh, Hillary actively defended her sex pest husband and slammed his accusers repeatedly and people were and are #StillWithHer Excellent false equivalency there.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2018 10:32
|
|
|
galenanorth posted:The 9-11 commission report concluded "We have seen no evidence that any foreign government – or foreign government official – supplied any funding." but there is other evidence Even if tomorrow MBS comes out and admits that the highest levels of the KSA government directly planned, funded, and executed the 9/11 attacks, and presented ample evidence of it, and gloated about how many Americans were killed, and provided evidence that at this exact moment they were preparing more, even bigger terrorist attacks against the US, then it would still not be in the US's best interests to lose KSA as an ally, because the world cannot allow the US to have complete control over KSA's oil.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2018 11:24
|
|
|
Space Cadet Omoly posted:So it's basically this again: This comic is bullshit. How did all those people get up there?
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2018 11:51
|
|
|
No, most dems have higher standards than that. There’s a pretty big difference between Hillary defending herself - as a woman - against her husband having been a sex pest decades ago, versus Avenatti beating women right here and now. The only way he wins the primary is if it all turns out to be a Surefire hoax, which at this point I consider extremely unlikely.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2018 12:31
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:Uh Wave goodbye to your hopes of ever being House Speaker, Congresswoman, because Jeeeeeeeeeesus Christ.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2018 12:49
|
|
|
Not a Step posted:Didnt Trump have an active lawsuit against his scam university during the primary? Being a sex pest and scam artist is no barrier to running in TYOOL 2018, and at the very least makes the inevitable book deal that much spicier. You could say that excusing sex pests is a Republican thing and good Democrats won't stand for it, but, uh, Hillary actively defended her sex pest husband and slammed his accusers repeatedly and people were and are #StillWithHer Michael Avenatti is not Hillary Clinton and no one is going to dive on a grenade for him. Seriously?
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2018 12:50
|
|
|
Not a Step posted:I think most people go through this cycle where they first think giving developing nations jobs making shoes or whatever is good. Then they learn about the horrors of sweatshops, and thats bad. Then they learn some basic economics and hear about supply and demand and comparative advantage and decide sweatshops are, in fact, good because it leverages the cheap labor supply and provides money not otherwise available. I want to say advanced economics then deconstructs that to swing back around to 'sweatshops bad' but it really doesn't unless you take a narrow subset of classes focusing on labor exploitation (as a bad thing). I think the only insulation is learning (real) history and getting into ethnography of the quality of life before and after labor exploitation and industrialization. Plus Econ 101/201 fuels infinite bad takes about supply and demand, inflation, and dumb poo poo about balancing budgets. I think it has more to do with whether your beliefs favor equality over personal freedom. A lot of Americans really do not give a poo poo that others suffer so they can wear their ill fitting clothes and crappy shoes. They definitely blame the victim for not doing more to better their situation assuming they ever stop to think about the suffering that goes into the lifestyle of the middle class in developed countries.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2018 13:38
|
|
|
Fritz Coldcockin posted:Wave goodbye to your hopes of ever being House Speaker, Congresswoman, because Jeeeeeeeeeesus Christ. https://twitter.com/carl52817656/status/1064833779536183296 ending on this that I just outright guffawed at because it's so goddamn absurd https://twitter.com/melabroohaha/status/1064852615727595521
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2018 13:42
|
|
|
I'm here to kick rear end and smear Fudge
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2018 13:43
|
|
|
Solvent posted:Ok. So, this is a total snipe, but that’s how I roll apparently. He’s only big because he was a journalist and the media likes to circle the wagons around their own. Every major network was in the tank for Saudi Arabia before this
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2018 13:51
|
|
|
Ate My Balls Redux posted:This comic is bullshit. How did all those people get up there? Yeah, also at that moment bush was reading a kids book, not on Air Force one
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2018 13:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 10:06 |
|
|
Not A Step, I wouldn't say labor economics is a small part of economic theory, it just doesn't get the same public attention as macroeconomics and usually isn't part of a 101 course outside of the wage-inflation connection.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2018 14:22
|
|
