|
Lib and let die posted:Look man, I'm not proud of this but I frequently have a hard time parsing your arguments because you deploy overly academic-sounding rhetoric that makes it difficult for a layperson such as myself to work through; could you dumb this down to something that someone who failed out of Technical School can understand easily? Tell me which part you are having trouble with and I'll give it a shot.
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2022 19:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 16:45 |
|
|
It looks like Biden's student loan forgiveness program is running at +10 approval, including even among self-identified "independents" (who skew conservative). The major groups opposed are Republicans, people without college degrees, and old people (over 50). https://twitter.com/aedwardslevy/status/1565048341406355463
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2022 19:59
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:You can criticize a system while acknowledging there's no politically possible way to fix it at this time. If they just want to shout into the void, that's fine, but that's not going to change minds or accomplish anything. If their goal is to fix or replace the system, then they need to identify the problem and determine steps to correct the problem. If the problem is the current system supports and reinforces corrupt, brutal policing, then before the "abolish the entire police" step, there has to be a "replace the current system which supports the bad policing" step before that. That step is also too vague, so there need to be steps before that one as well. Work backwards to find a sequence of smaller steps to get from A to Z. Even if it seems like some of the steps are impossible, that's the only way to actually solve a problem. Trying to skip straight to Z without any answers to "How" and "And then what?" isn't going to work. Stabbey_the_Clown fucked around with this message at 20:06 on Aug 31, 2022 |
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2022 20:04
|
|
|
Stabbey_the_Clown posted:If they just want to shout into the void, that's fine, but that's not going to change minds or accomplish anything. The problem may currently be unsolvable. Many of the steps short of "abolish the police" have been tried and were either ineffetive or quickly diverted into the existing problem. There are systems which are resistant or immune to reform. Police are a great example of such systems. If you want to give steps short of abolition, feel free to demonstrate their effectiveness over a medium to long term.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2022 20:07
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:If by "false inequivalencies" you mean gaps in reasoning representing a disingenuous argument reflecting selective reasoning about sources, yes. The point of the article continues was to get a range of responses from different people and positions who share some common features. It does that. It includes sources you disagree with, including "card-carryng fascists". The card-carrying fascists exist. You should not demand that the press pretend that they do not. As explained many times, reporting someone's position does not automatically mean that the position is endorsed or favored. Westbrook isn't Trump or a Proud Boy- her position is not so far beyond the pale that it benefits from the light of day, especially not as it is contextualized against four other disagreeing positions. The rank and file of the GOP are absolutely at the very least transphobic, which is enough to make someone a fascist. Platforming fascists is fascist behavior in and of itself because they are just toying with you in bad faith in any non-violent interaction.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2022 20:11
|
|
|
I feel like giving 40% of your article over to professional politicos is maybe not the best way to give the average person an honest look at the diversity of opinions on a subject.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2022 20:13
|
|
|
slurm posted:The rank and file of the GOP are absolutely at the very least transphobic, which is enough to make someone a fascist. Platforming fascists is fascist behavior in and of itself because they are just toying with you in bad faith in any non-violent interaction. Huge slam on Leon Trotsky 2012 out of nowhere.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2022 20:13
|
|
|
"Card carrying fascists exist so we have to give them a platform which is not the same as endorsing" is not a strong argument to be honest. You do not in fact have to give the regressive idea that no one should get loans for education space in your article about loan forgiveness. You wouldn't ask for the Nazis' opinion in an article about all the civil rights progress happening.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2022 20:19
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:I feel like giving 40% of your article over to professional politicos is maybe not the best way to give the average person an honest look at the diversity of opinions on a subject. I feel like this pretty much boils the complaint down to the main bit. The other stuff is all subjective, but writing an article with the premise "we wanted to know what people with student loan debt thought about the policy" and having roughly half of the participants be professional politicos, and another 20% being one woman who is in a lovely situation, but is a wildly unrepresentative example of people with student loans, doesn't really give you a good picture of "what people with student loan debt think," except in the very literal sense that all of them are people saying what they think (even the "people who have student loan debt" definition isn't true because one of the participants - AKA 20% of the total - says they paid theirs off nearly 4 years ago). I don't think there is anything inherently wrong with interviewing people involved in politics in general and being against student loan forgiveness doesn't make you fascist, but they don't really serve the stated purpose of the article. Leon Trotsky 2012 fucked around with this message at 20:23 on Aug 31, 2022 |
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2022 20:19
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:I feel like this pretty much boils the complaint down to the main bit. Yeah, it's a disingenuous article and arguing that you can look past all the disingenuous parts to see the real meaning isn't an argument, it's congratulating yourself on your reading comprehension. The average person's reading will be very different, especially when you remember that articles like this then give cover for other outlets to selectively quote and use it for their own messages.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2022 20:25
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Trump was planning on making an announcement (likely in the affirmative) about whether he is running for President in 2024 next weekend. But, he has delayed it indefinitely; possibly until next year over concerns that several of his endorsed candidates may end up losing and Republicans' midterm forecasts being downgraded from "historic blowout" to just "good" would be blamed on him announcing before the midterms. Weird to be agreeing with Ann Coulter here, but that podcast episode of hers that was posted yesterday.. in it she says that Trump’s endorsements come in two flavors. One, the majority, is when he waits until the very last moment of a winning GOP candidate’s running and then hops in front and “acts like he’s leading the parade.” He does this often because it’s a sure bet that he won’t look bad. The other endorsement is when he actually tries to endorse someone’s race early on (like an actual endorsement should be) and so far every single time he’s done that it destroys the candidate’s chances of winning and they lose horribly. Beyond the Fox News performance artists, Trump is poison to the GOP. They just won’t say it out loud yet. But they know it. I also do not think most of the lifetime political GOP house/senate members are liking the quality and character of absolute nut job insane people that are winning their primaries using the MAGA podium right now. They absolutely do not want to work with those people.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2022 20:44
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:The problem may currently be unsolvable. Many of the steps short of "abolish the police" have been tried and were either ineffetive or quickly diverted into the existing problem. Where there's been success its usually been targeting local police departments, effectively abolishing them or dismissing a huge chunk of the staff, and rebuilding them from the ground up according to modern principles. Camden is the go to example here. The issue is it is hard to implement this as a national policy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2022 20:47
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Tell me which part you are having trouble with and I'll give it a shot. I mean, not to be glib but like...the whole thing. Explain it to me like you're teaching a class of sixth graders. quote:gaps in reasoning representing a disingenuous argument reflecting selective reasoning about sources Is a completely unintelligible string of nonsense. So far as my peasant brain can decode: gaps in reasoning = lack of critical thinking skill representing a disingenuous argument = i don't actually believe what I'm saying reflecting selective reasoning = i only picked out the criticism I did to push an agenda? It all sounds very hostile, and I think it's one of the reasons why your posting draws such...controversy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2022 20:54
|
|
|
The recent relative labor shortage has really revealed a lot of darkly hilarious aspects about employment. It turns out, that employers will magically eliminate the gender pay gap when they can't hire anyone. And the reasoning that women might not be as able to do the work or as efficient as men weirdly seems to disappear when they need labor more than they need lower wages. It has also revealed a weird psychology among some employers where, even when their labor costs are relatively small portions of their expenses, they view the payment negotiations as something they have to "win" by getting the lowest number that employees will accept and that paying more is "losing," but they don't apply that scrutiny to other aspects of business. This is the first time in about 30 years that there has been such a gap in the number of jobs vs. people to fill them, so it seems like an unnatural disruption of the natural order to some people. According to the news piece, labor unions in the construction field also sort of fell victim to this thinking and are only now seeking out more women for the jobs. https://twitter.com/NancyChenNews/status/1564801638270992387
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2022 20:59
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:Yeah, it's a disingenuous article and arguing that you can look past all the disingenuous parts to see the real meaning isn't an argument, it's congratulating yourself on your reading comprehension. The average person's reading will be very different, especially when you remember that articles like this then give cover for other outlets to selectively quote and use it for their own messages. It's also important to keep in mind that people who are very well versed in media criticism are not the typical target audience for articles such as these. They are meant for casual average readership, to be easily digestible bites for people who probably aren't going to think about it that much. If the WaPo actually wanted to say that she was full of poo poo, they should have been more explicit and unambiguous about it, rather than leaving it to the reader decode their clues. Or, better yet, they could have just not provided her take.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2022 21:01
|
|
|
Blind Rasputin posted:Weird to be agreeing with Ann Coulter here, but that podcast episode of hers that was posted yesterday.. in it she says that Trump’s endorsements come in two flavors. One, the majority, is when he waits until the very last moment of a winning GOP candidate’s running and then hops in front and “acts like he’s leading the parade.” He does this often because it’s a sure bet that he won’t look bad. The other endorsement is when he actually tries to endorse someone’s race early on (like an actual endorsement should be) and so far every single time he’s done that it destroys the candidate’s chances of winning and they lose horribly. Mr. Trump endorsed Joe Kent for WA-03 on September 1st of 2021 and he won the primary this year against the incumbant that voted to impeach him. Ann Coutler is wrong and dumb, and as such not someone to take political advice from.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2022 21:04
|
|
|
Yeah, there are some notable exceptions to those categories. It's less extreme than your example, but at the time Trump endorsed Oz in the PA republican primary he was polling in second to McCormick with over a month to go but then went on to win.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2022 21:07
|
|
|
Blind Rasputin posted:Weird to be agreeing with Ann Coulter here, but that podcast episode of hers that was posted yesterday.. in it she says that Trump’s endorsements come in two flavors. The first one reminds me of a super bowl (this might be one of the Donnie era ones, so 2015 to 2019??) where Donnie and the other non true fans left when it was extrmemly likely the whatever team was going to lose, but turned it around and won. e for not double posting. huh lachlan murdoch(Rupert Murdoch's son) vs crickey is apparently happening now. this should be interesting. PhazonLink fucked around with this message at 22:17 on Aug 31, 2022 |
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2022 22:14
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:It's also important to keep in mind that people who are very well versed in media criticism are not the typical target audience for articles such as these. They are meant for casual average readership, to be easily digestible bites for people who probably aren't going to think about it that much. If the WaPo actually wanted to say that she was full of poo poo, they should have been more explicit and unambiguous about it, rather than leaving it to the reader decode their clues. Or, better yet, they could have just not provided her take. Yeah, that often ends up being the breakdown in these discussions. Being able to correctly perceive the signal through the noise doesn't mean the majority of the pop can and that needs to be considered in the messaging.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2022 22:30
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:If by "false inequivalencies" you mean gaps in reasoning representing a disingenuous argument reflecting selective reasoning about sources, yes. This is the thesis statement. The rest of the paragraph is an explanation. The user is being disingenuous by making their claims harder to respond to, layering them with implicit claims and multiple contradictory explanations across several posts. Because their stated arguments aren't consistent with the message, it becomes possible to see where there are differences between what they are actually actually care about and what they are pretending to, or rationalizing that they care about. These are the "gaps in reasoning". The thing they actually care about is defending "selective reasoning about sources"- to attack sources of information (people, newspapers, users, and forums) that they find unpleasant, or which don't support their worldview. As an example of disingenuousness, among other shifting claims, they focused on and misrepresented that their problem was with the inclusion of Westbrook as a "republican operative" who was "in the reporter's rolodex", attempting to imply that the reporter didn't seek out "authentic voices". This claim has a problem on its own- the idea that Westbrook was involved in some sort of planned organizational entry into the article, which isn't demonstrated in any way. Westbrook isn't a regular source for the press on this- she's quoted once, months ago, in another outlet, on the same subject. While she works for a conservative group, she's not a PR flack; it's far more likely that she's one of many true believers who's used to trying to get into the press with her views. The fact that Westbrook was quoted was argued as proof that the author was either lazy or lacked resources, two contradictory explanations with different consequences or ramifications (including whether the author is to blame at all!). However, even if this "laziness/lack of resources" problem was their actual critique, there would have been no reason to fixate on Westbrook and ignore Stoney- or to ignore how either source was contextualized. This is the "gap in reasoning", which illustrates that the claim doesn't match the argument being made. This gap reflects the difference between what the user is pretending to care about, and what they actually care about. Discendo Vox posted:The point of the article continues was to get a range of responses from different people and positions who share some common features. The article is not a focus group or a survey. Like many such articles on many subjects, the point is to give a range of different opinions on a common subject by people- in this case, people with the common trait of past student debt. The goal is not to set up a debate or present both sides, or to measure the amount of support for each side- it is to provide several different people, with different, explicitly stated backgrounds, stating different positions. Discendo Vox posted:It includes sources you disagree with, including "card-carrying fascists". The card-carrying fascists exist. You should not demand that the press pretend that they do not. As explained many times, reporting someone's position does not automatically mean that the position is endorsed or favored. Westbrook isn't Trump or a Proud Boy- her position is not so far beyond the pale that it benefits from the light of day, especially not as it is contextualized against four other disagreeing positions. Republicans, including their political operatives, actually believe most of what they say. The story is still supposed to include these people, even if their beliefs are dumb. But in shifting to complaining about "platforming", the claim has moved from being about the construction of the article (laziness/lack of resources) to being a problem with "advertising" Westbrook's position. However, this is inadvertently closer to the actual reason the user is complaining about the article - they are unhappy because the article included a statement from someone they disagree with (or because the presence of the statement lets them attack the Washington Post, and the mod who posted a story from it). This is what the user is actually objecting to- why they are euphemistically referring to Westbrook as not an "actual human being". This is the "selective reasoning about sources". They find the discussion of information, including unpleasant information like the fact that people like Westbrook exist and sincerely hold these idiotic views, unpalatable or inconvenient. (The subsequent shift to the fascist accusation is because it lets them a) introduce a more inflammatory attack so they can repeat their previous claims and b) indirectly accuse anyone disagreeing with them of supporting a fascist.) Lib and let die posted:It all sounds very hostile, and I think it's one of the reasons why your posting draws such...controversy. To wit, just because you don't understand something doesn't mean it's a "completely unintelligible string of nonsense," in the same way that someone disagreeing with you isn't automatically a lib fascist. If something isn't clear, just ask. It's what this subforum is supposed to be about. The constant string of jabs about media literacy does not do you, me, or the forums any favors. I take zero pleasure from being the subject of this "attention". At least this time I can attempt to explain again before my post gets blind quoted elsewhere. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 22:47 on Aug 31, 2022 |
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2022 22:35
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:The problem may currently be unsolvable. Many of the steps short of "abolish the police" have been tried and were either ineffetive or quickly diverted into the existing problem. Most really big problems are composed of an amalgamation of smaller problems. With an apparently unsolvable problem which is expressed in general terms, the question to ask is "what supports the system and prevents its reform?" There will likely be other large, seemingly unsolvable problems expressed in general terms, which need to be broken down into smaller, and more specific problems. Does that guarantee that a solution will be found, of course not. But the smaller and more specific the problem, the more likely it is that it can be solved, and solving smaller problems can unlock the way to solving larger problems. quote:If you want to give steps short of abolition, feel free to demonstrate their effectiveness over a medium to long term. Saying "if you want to give steps short of abolition" seems to imply that you support abolition as a single step. It isn't. "Abolish the police" is a slogan, not a plan. If you want "abolish the police" to be put into some kind of actionable plan, you'd need to answer how that gets done. As Morrow points out, just outright disbanding forces only has been tried on a small scale. What's the "how"? Is it one small town at a time, is it some kind of all at once thing? Each possible path to take has its own challenges, consequences, and outcomes which need to be planned for.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2022 22:49
|
|
|
To be 1000% clear I'm not saying she's a fascist because she's a Republican I'm saying it because "the government shouldn't give loans for school" is economic policy that would support a fascist state by creating an uneducated under class to be easily exploited and make sure that only those who have access to money, who would be the in group, have access to education. It's like if she was advocating for voter ID laws and someone said "well she's just saying you need an ID. That's not fascist" when we all know why those policies get pushed.quote:If anything, she said, the government should abolish the federal lending program, which she believes incentivizes colleges to keep prices artificially high. Perhaps then, colleges will be forced to lower their prices. It's a grossly regressive view. Gumball Gumption fucked around with this message at 22:56 on Aug 31, 2022 |
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2022 22:51
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:. you could have saved yourself a great many words and significant time by simply saying 'I choose to believe the people disagreeing with me are only doing so as an exercise in bad faith antagonism towards me personally.' i see no reason to doubt that your persecution by the malevolent agents redistributing your posts without authorization weighs on you, but its relevance to people complaining about the Washington Post electing to serve as a mouthpiece for nonsensical Republican propaganda is dubious at best. you will find that there have been numerous complaints from people regarding the billionaire who owns it exerting his editorial control in both overt and more subtle ways long before you took up the mantle of Designated Media Knower. it will be far easier to engage with your arguments if you allow for the possibility that people disagree with your positions for reasons beyond personal antagonism. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2022 22:54
|
|
|
Stabbey_the_Clown posted:"Abolish the police" is a slogan, not a plan. If you want "abolish the police" to be put into some kind of actionable plan, you'd need to answer how that gets done. As Morrow points out, just outright disbanding forces only has been tried on a small scale. What's the "how"? Is it one small town at a time, is it some kind of all at once thing? Each possible path to take has its own challenges, consequences, and outcomes which need to be planned for. Abolish the police, and defund the police, are both slogans and strategies. What you're asking is how do we get there. The answer is we currently don't. I'm asking you what steps do you think, short of those might work. I can point out that the current Extremely Bad and Fascist sheriff of Los Angeles literally ran on a platform of reforming the police, which he just straight up lied about and did precisely the opposite in office. All of his opponents in the upcoming election have similar poor records or outright reject reform. There is a civilian oversight board. What do you think would work? I'd also encourage you to read the police thread. edit: Oh did I forget to ad LASD has deputy gangs complete with tattoos and consequences for going against the gang and the sheriff was in one Jaxyon fucked around with this message at 22:58 on Aug 31, 2022 |
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2022 22:55
|
|
|
PhazonLink posted:The first one reminds me of a super bowl (this might be one of the Donnie era ones, so 2015 to 2019??) where Donnie and the other non true fans left when it was extrmemly likely the whatever team was going to lose, but turned it around and won. Patriots - falcons. The infamous 28-3 game that’s not nearly as funny as it used to be given everything that’s happened since. Unless you’re a degenerate saints fan.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2022 22:57
|
|
|
Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:you could have saved yourself a great many words and significant time by simply saying 'I choose to believe the people disagreeing with me are only doing so as an exercise in bad faith antagonism towards me personally.' I provided explicit examples of shifts in argument and statements and facts about the article that were ignored, by them and you, repeatedly.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2022 22:58
|
|
|
Yeowch!!! My Balls!!! posted:you could have saved yourself a great many words and significant time by simply saying 'I choose to believe the people disagreeing with me are only doing so as an exercise in bad faith antagonism towards me personally.' Yeah, I just don't think you need to ask "Repeal the federal loan program" how they feel about loan forgiveness in the same way you don't need to ask the racist how they feel about civil rights or the homophobe on if they think gay marriage was the right choice. Honestly I think DV is right in their explanation but here's how I would re-explain everything in a way similar to him. DV "The article is good because it follows the rules that make it a good article" Everyone else: "Yes, but the things they said are so loving stupid they shouldn't be said" It's two non-opposing arguments grasping to fight each other. Gumball Gumption fucked around with this message at 23:08 on Aug 31, 2022 |
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2022 22:59
|
|
|
Stabbey_the_Clown posted:Most really big problems are composed of an amalgamation of smaller problems. With an apparently unsolvable problem which is expressed in general terms, the question to ask is "what supports the system and prevents its reform?" quote:There will likely be other large, seemingly unsolvable problems expressed in general terms, which need to be broken down into smaller, and more specific problems. Does that guarantee that a solution will be found, of course not. But the smaller and more specific the problem, the more likely it is that it can be solved, and solving smaller problems can unlock the way to solving larger problems. quote:Saying "if you want to give steps short of abolition" seems to imply that you support abolition as a single step. It isn't.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2022 23:03
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:My posting draws "controversy" because a number of users repeatedly redistribute it and misrepresent it to others. They target me because I put effort into explaining things and quote others' words in detail, and because I want D&D to actually serve as a place for good faith educational discussion- something that's really hard to do if people are systematically rejecting information they don't like. This invites attack from people who either seek conflict as entertainment, have a worldview that relies on selective reasoning about information, or who are socialized around really loving hating the concept of a well-moderated good faith discussion space.  (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2022 23:15
|
|
|
I don't give justice credit for this being intentional, but including the haphazardly scattered document photo in their reply seems to have broken whatever bit of Trump's sanity remained: https://mobile.twitter.com/AndrewFeinberg/status/1565086491847573504 The sound you don't hear is righty pundits correcting their previous assertions that everything was planted, because they've given up even pretending that accuracy or consistency matters. This is... not helpful... for any ongoing or future defense strategy.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2022 23:27
|
|
|
Blind Rasputin posted:Weird to be agreeing with Ann Coulter here, but that podcast episode of hers that was posted yesterday.. in it she says that Trump’s endorsements come in two flavors. One, the majority, is when he waits until the very last moment of a winning GOP candidate’s running and then hops in front and “acts like he’s leading the parade.” He does this often because it’s a sure bet that he won’t look bad. The other endorsement is when he actually tries to endorse someone’s race early on (like an actual endorsement should be) and so far every single time he’s done that it destroys the candidate’s chances of winning and they lose horribly. I'm not sure if you're referring only to general elections here. Trump certainly tries to mostly cherry pick candidates who are already winning, a sure thing, as he mainly cares about making himself look good. And is also a coward who hates to go out on a limb risking making himself look bad with a loser pick. But his endorsement has certainly been important or instrumental for some candidates, at least in the primaries. He likely put JD Vance and Oz over the top in their primaries with his endorsement. I don't know who else was running for the Herschel Walker spot but jesus if they lose that race because he backed an absolute numbskull. Just lol at him "unendorsing" people like Mo Brooks when they start doing badly though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2022 23:31
|
|
|
in addition to not getting paid, this is why no lawyers will work for trump: https://twitter.com/renato_mariotti/status/1565101591891480576?s=21&t=E5_48c_BYZq1NGzTE_1Lrw it is generally considered non-ideal to have your clients confess in writing in public to elements of crimes
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2022 23:34
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Trump's extremely good lawyer sent a letter to a NY state court (in a different case from the current DOJ investigation) saying that no classified material at Mar-a-Lago was improperly viewed or stored because she personally performed a search for missing documents and sorted through the initial boxes to return all the classified information. To be clear, she was responding to a subpoena about documents related to the NYAG investigation, which is about Trump lying about the value of his properties in various contexts. So when she says "I found no responsive documents," she means she found no documents relevant to Trump's valuation of his properties. She's now a potential fact witness in the DoJ investigation, as whether or not she found/saw classified/NDI documents is relevant there, but her saying "I found no documents relevant to the NYAG subpoena" and then the FBI finding documents relevant to the DoJ investigation are not necessarily mutually exclusive statements. I mean it's Alina Habba, a lawyer so craven that her website profile lists a Harvard executive education program instead of her actual law school on her website, so we can take 3 as a given, but her response to the NYAG subpoena isn't false because it says she found nothing responsive was found - what NYAG asked her to produce and what the FBI found are separate categories of documents.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2022 23:34
|
|
|
Does Trump just hire these lawyers by watching late night infomercials?
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2022 23:36
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:This is the thesis statement. The rest of the paragraph is an explanation. People can be genuine even if their argument seems disjointed and you vehemently disagree. For example I believe you are being genuine about your forum persecution but I myself think you're looking past the simpler explanation that your posting is aggressively lovely. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2022 23:38
|
|
|
Zwabu posted:Does Trump just hire these lawyers by watching late night infomercials? He tries to hire good lawyers. They won't take his case because he wont listen to them and wont pay them. He's left with the dregs who will take the case for the publicity - and he won't pay them either (he stiffed Giuliani)
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2022 23:39
|
|
|
I imagine he could work out some form of lump sum payment that is done in advance or putting money in escrow. So it's very very clear that he's planning from the outset to no pay these fuckers.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2022 23:41
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:I imagine he could work out some form of lump sum payment that is done in advance or putting money in escrow. Oh of course he isn't. As everyone who's ever worked with him on everything loudly and publicly attests. There's a reason he has to search further and further for more obscure lawyers.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2022 23:45
|
|
|
Not that it matters. Dude is never ever seeing the inside of a jail. He probably won't even get to be fined more than a cost of doing business.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2022 23:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 16:45 |
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Abolish the police, and defund the police, are both slogans and strategies. They're both slogans and neither are strategies. Strategies consist of more than three words. quote:What you're asking is how do we get there. The answer is we currently don't. I'm not going to waste both our times by proposing steps I think would work. I don't have enough knowledge to give an informed answer. My question is why you think some kind of instant mass abolishment of the police would both be possible and would have a positive effect? cat botherer posted:What prevents genuine police reform is that it would negate the purpose of the police. It is existential for this system. Is there a system which does not require some form of police or law enforcement? quote:The overthrow of capitalism is necessary. The police protect capital, which in general tries to maintain the status quo. It's not an easy answer, but it is the answer. See, "tear down capitalism" is a step needed before "abolish the police". I do have to ask, though, is there a system of government which does NOT try to maintain the status quo which that government currently exists under? All I can think of is anarchy, which may sound great to some people, right up until they're the ones which end up under the burning bus.
|
|
#
?
Aug 31, 2022 23:53
|
|