|
Data Graham posted:I remember those bits. I feel like back in the 90s there wasn't as much of a qualitative distinction being made between dumb/politician-rear end-covering euphemisms that we all ought to be derisive of (like calling a meltdown an unrequested fission surplus or whatever) and the kind of "political correctness" that means not habitually slurring groups of people who ought by rights not get dunked on. You're right, and to my knowledge his targets were always sloganeering and euphemisms being used by the political class, the professional opinion makers and etc. He would harp on dumb sayings amongst the citizenry but that really wasn't a point he was making about being PC, just how we sort of blindly repeat old colloquialisms without examining if they make sense and etc. Obviously the discussion we're all having these days is pretty different because now there's a real pushback on misogyny, racism, trans and homophobia and etc that there just was not then.
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2019 23:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 18:55 |
|
|
The Super-Id posted:It’s a great movie, but so is the new one. It was good and smart to make it very different too so they don’t really compete with each other for a place in my heart. Usually movie remakes are soulless cash ins. Might check it out at some point if it's legit then. I assume there's no over the top hunter character chewing the scenery in this one or if he's in it he's different cause that character was as 90's family movie villain as they come. Kale fucked around with this message at 23:13 on Jan 12, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2019 23:09
|
|
|
Oh gently caress off https://mobile.twitter.com/CNNPolitics/status/1084204650973270016
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2019 23:13
|
|
|
Kale posted:Usually movie remakes are soulless cash ins. Might check it out at some point if it's legit then. I assume there's no over the top hunter character chewing the scenery in this one or if he's in it he's different. Van Pelt is in it but completely different. Also ultimately not a big part of the movie despite being the antagonist. There is definitely a soul to the new Jumanji, the characters have some depth and it has good things to say about people. That said it’s still a somewhat silly movie but if you don’t go in expecting high art you will probably be pleasantly surprised.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2019 23:15
|
|
|
Data Graham posted:And border arrests being up 240% since a year ago is probably attributable to the CBP going apeshit with new enthusiasm, right? I wonder if that includes the children in internment camps
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2019 23:23
|
|
|
Kale posted:Usually movie remakes are soulless cash ins. Might check it out at some point if it's legit then. I assume there's no over the top hunter character chewing the scenery in this one or if he's in it he's different cause that character was as 90's family movie villain as they come. I shall need a replacement weapon.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2019 23:29
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/scottmstedman/status/1084210576585179137?s=21
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2019 23:29
|
|
|
Data Graham posted:Someone want to contextualize and/or debunk these? I assume they're some combination of "actual stats fluffed up to look scary" and "lies", but I'm not sure of the proportion. Debunking lies is an ineffective way to approach Donald's disinformation campaign. True statements can be contextualized dishonestly or in bad faith to mislead you. Firing back at lies is expensive, slow, and is too late anyway since now there is a false sense that the ideas deserve equal consideration. Even *known lies*, presented to people who *know they are lies* can serve the propagandist's purpose by shifting the conversation to be about the propagandist's preferred topic. For example, non-stop insisting that immigrants are criminals will cause public discussion to constantly be about criminal immigrants, leading to confusion and annihilation of truth. Don't focus on debunking Trump. Acknowledge he's a lying motherfucker and move on.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2019 23:45
|
|
|
Death By Yogurt posted:https://www.axios.com/reality-check-trumps-tweet-on-immigrant-crime-uses-inaccurate-data-707a2049-f9dd-4a9c-ba16-9ad139cf28ca.html It's not just that they are inflated, its that they are absolute values that are made to look large. Crime in Texas for 2010. 292000 crimes: In 2010 alone there were 1,064,477 "total crimes" in Texas. 539 murders: In 2010 alone there were 1259 murders in Texas. 32,000 assaults In 2010 alone there were 71,517 assaults in Texas. (sexual assaults and weapons charges aren't separated in the Wikipedia data.) What about per population? total: 4,215.2 crimes/100k/year aggravated assaults: 283.2 assaults/100k/year murder: 4.9 murders/100k/year Let's make his tweet look as ridiculous as possible by making every assumption we can to favor "undocumented immigrants are all criminals." Estimates for the number of illegal immigrants in Texas are hard. But we want the smallest number possible (so their crime rate is really high, they're criminals, remember?). I'll use Wikipedia again (ugh, "illegal immigrants" as a statistical category name...), that gives 11.1 million with "California, Texas, Florida, New York, New Jersey and Illinois accounted for 59% of illegal immigrants in 2014." So let's call it 1/6 of 60% of 11.1 million or 1.1 million undocumented immigrants in Texas in 2014. Let us further assume that the 292000 charges really are crimes and the liberal activist courts are preventing real Americans from getting justice and also assume the 292000 are real crimes and not simply being here without documentation. 292000 / (8 years) / (11*100k) = 3318.2 crimes/100k/year 32443 / (8 years) / (11*100k) = 368.7 assaults/100k/year 529 / (8 years) / (11*100k) = 6.1 murders/100k/year If you go by the conviction rate (from the "Reality Check"): total crimes: 1363.6 crimes/100k/year assaults = 154.1 assaults/100k/year murders = 2.7 murders/100k/year Remember that the first numbers came from making every assumptions possible to favor the numbers that our dumbass president tweeted out. Nothing Trump says is ever useful, even if the specifics are true in vacuum.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2019 23:48
|
|
|
there's all kinds of poo poo that could fit in that box and that's no better than any other guess (except it's worse because "President Donald J. Trump Criminal Investigation" doesn't even sound right)
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2019 23:48
|
|
|
If trump used a made up number that didn’t even exist you’d see people argue if it was a number to begin with
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2019 23:53
|
|
|
"...the spiders"?
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2019 23:56
|
|
|
SocketWrench posted:"...the spiders"? In his brain, yes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2019 00:08
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:There's a reason why the rock is one of the single most popular Americans period full stop He's insanely media-savvy. I knew there was no way he would have said that poo poo in public even if he believed it
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2019 00:10
|
|
|
bobjr posted:If trump used a made up number that didn’t even exist you’d see people argue if it was a number to begin with Somehow get him to say he did something on the thirty-twelfth of Yezzletide and watch the chuds freak out when it isn't in their calendar, OMG DEEP STATE MISPRINTED ALL THE CALENDARS
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2019 00:15
|
|
|
Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:Oh gently caress off didn't pompeo already do this?
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2019 00:18
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/NatashaBertrand/status/1084228372811730944 jesus christ As a result, U.S. officials said there is no detailed record, even in classified files, of Trump’s face-to-face interactions with the Russian leader at five locations over the past two years. Such a gap would be unusual in any presidency, let alone one that Russia sought to install through what U.S. intelligence agencies have described as an unprecedented campaign of election interference.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2019 00:20
|
|
|
It’s seriously amazing just how compromised our piss boy President is.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2019 00:24
|
|
|
eke out posted:https://twitter.com/NatashaBertrand/status/1084228372811730944 If this fucker isn't guilty, he is doing everything in his power to frame himself Can we just impeach the motherfucker already?
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2019 00:25
|
|
|
There is certainly a lot going on in those redacted documents, but trying to fit text into the black boxes seems to be open to all sorts of misleading conclusions and basically trying to solve sudoku games. The thing about this investigation is, there is enough information openly available, in indictments, pleas, sentencing documents, and other clear sources of information, that going to the trouble of trying to find hidden clues is extraneous. The Southern District of New York, in its indictment of Michael Cohen, that he pled guilty to, has already implicated Donald Trump in a felony, which if he wasn't president, he would probably already be indicted for, and which he has not factually debated. There is no reason to try to seek hidden clues when this is publicly available information with almost no ambiguity.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2019 00:25
|
|
|
eke out posted:https://twitter.com/NatashaBertrand/status/1084228372811730944 jesus christ. maybe that horse whisperer resistance person has a some points.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2019 00:27
|
|
|
glowing-fish posted:There is certainly a lot going on in those redacted documents, but trying to fit text into the black boxes seems to be open to all sorts of misleading conclusions and basically trying to solve sudoku games. the other thing is michael flynn is now openly cooperating against his former turkish business associates, who have been indicted in the wake of this filing so the odds that that's one of their names are pretty high
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2019 00:27
|
|
|
glowing-fish posted:The Southern District of New York, in its indictment of Michael Cohen, that he pled guilty to, has already implicated Donald Trump in a felony, which if he wasn't president, he would probably already be indicted for, and which he has not factually debated. Uhhhh, if "No collusion! No collusion! YOU'RE the colluder' isn't debating it on the facts, I don't know what is. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2019 00:28
|
|
|
glowing-fish posted:There is certainly a lot going on in those redacted documents, but trying to fit text into the black boxes seems to be open to all sorts of misleading conclusions and basically trying to solve sudoku games. Sounds like a task for machine-learning AI! We can call it Mad Libs Bot: CIA Edition.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2019 00:29
|
|
|
eke out posted:https://twitter.com/NatashaBertrand/status/1084228372811730944 https://twitter.com/mikeisaac/status/1084229774602465280?s=21
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2019 00:32
|
|
|
Subpoena that interpreter right the gently caress now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2019 00:34
|
|
|
mdemone posted:Subpoena that interpreter right the gently caress now. That's gonna be the quickest invocation of executive privilege ever
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2019 00:36
|
|
|
The Glumslinger posted:That's gonna be the quickest invocation of executive privilege ever to be fair that'd be a totally legit invocation, and asserting privilege for an actually constitutional reason would be kind of shocking in and of itself
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2019 00:38
|
|
|
eke out posted:to be fair that'd be a totally legit invocation, which would be kind of shocking in itself It would? Well poo poo. ...what if an impeachment trial? Still privileged?
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2019 00:38
|
|
|
mdemone posted:It would? Well poo poo. it's always hard to force the executive to do things when he's operating in a quintessentially-executive function like private discussions with foreign leaders and even beyond that, a translator would probably force a court to hold her in contempt before revealing this kind of thing because it would gently caress their career forever (despite there being no legally recognized privilege re: translators, it's a norm of their profession) eke out fucked around with this message at 00:45 on Jan 13, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2019 00:42
|
|
|
eke out posted:(except it's worse because "President Donald J. Trump Criminal Investigation" doesn't even sound right) Hey, they're not going to call it the "Fat Orange Idiot Criminal Investigation," are they?
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2019 00:55
|
|
|
Great, so we'll just never know what Trump said to Putin. Not like that could ever be important or anything. Super.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2019 01:02
|
|
|
mdemone posted:It would? Well poo poo. There is legal precedent with both Nixon and Reagan that executive privilege cannot be used in furtherance of hiding crimes, but who knows with this court.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2019 01:04
|
|
|
Remember that the Nixon WH tried to claim that the WH tapes were privileged and fell under executive privilege. They lost that case at SCOTUS but the court was way more liberal back then.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2019 01:04
|
|
|
Triggered? Because only the GOP knows what it is like to have loving dogs?
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2019 01:16
|
|
|
Nothing but respect for my pre— —Bring da bawl back Toby! Bring the bawl—aw don’t go in da watah your feet are awl wet! Oh dawg whut are you doin’ oooohhhh dawg that’s nasty!
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2019 01:20
|
|
|
Trump doesn't know what a dog is you moron.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2019 01:22
|
|
|
CmdrRiker posted:Triggered? Because only the GOP knows what it is like to have loving dogs?
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2019 01:22
|
|
|
Doctor Spaceman posted:Trump doesn't know what a dog is you moron. yeah trump hates dogs lol
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2019 01:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 18:55 |
|
|
If he really wants to use his dogs to honor Trump he'd fire them
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2019 01:34
|
|
