|
Epic High Five posted:Oh so Fox News will now be viewed as disreputable by anybody who doesn't instead just claim the fact that they're still operating the same as always means they won the court case, it's just a huge W for Fox News of the dodged bullet type for me. If they didn't consider a settlement a huge win they wouldn't have proposed it. Extremely disappointing that all the most explicit "I did this crime and here's why, and here's me admitting it was a crime I did" evidence and admissions in the world still couldn't rise above the level of a fine, is this the best promise of justice that can be offered by the system? A sad sort of admission that you can do whatever so long as you're rich enough? I think the key here is that it wasn't a crime in the criminal law sense, but a tort - this was a civil lawsuit, right? What outcome were you expecting from a civil lawsuit that doesn't in the end amount to "a fine"?
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2023 00:51
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 02:34 |
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:Cool thanks for the clarification. You are factually correct that if she's "never told a single truth in her life" it doesn't conclusively prove that she's wrong. Your saying that "it doesn't loving matter" is a matter of opinion, and I'll suspect it's far from universal. If someone has in fact never told a single truth in their life, I am going to be inclined to disbelieve their allegations until I get a chance to hear the other side and am given at least some level of evidence or third-party corroboration. Especially if they're openly aligning themselves with groups that are known to spread lies for ulterior political motives.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2023 04:58
|
|
|
virtualboyCOLOR posted:Question: is there a reason you find it necessary and worthwhile to defend someone like this Nah, I just think that the statement I was responding to was hyperbolic to the point of being kinda dumb. I also think it's hilarious to be like "it totally doesn't matter that this person accusing Joe Biden of crimes is now best buds with Vladimir Putin's administration." I'm not exactly a big fan of Joe Biden and could think of a lot of people I'd rather be president, but there are clearly some folks on this forum who severely dislike him and are going to pop out of the woodwork at any chance to drag him. I get that it's gonna happen, he's President and this is a current events thread, but this particular series of events doesn't feel like an interesting or novel discussion at all.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2023 05:27
|
|
|
virtualboyCOLOR posted:You choose what you do with your time. I’m just curious why your choice is to defend a person who has been recorded on camera touching and kissing women and children without consent. There are plenty of other topics to discuss in this thread (especially the debt ceiling agreement). Why focus on defending, at best, someone who has committed sexual assault? I'm not "focused" on defending Joe Biden, and would in fact be quite happy to read more discussion on the debt ceiling agreement. I do not have insights to contribute to that discussion myself, so I followed my usual pattern of lurking in this thread while it was being discussed. Now that people are engaged in a discussion that seems to be more driven by personal vendettas than any significant new facts to consider I figured I'd chime in with my opinion. Jaxyon posted:If I had a head of state and the whole media gaslighting me about my rape, I'd probably leave the country too. Do we now doubt Snowden because he left for there too? It's less about the fact that she left this country, and more about which country she went to.
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2023 05:42
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:It doesn't really matter, does it? She's a private citizen, she can go whereever the heck she wants and it's not really any of our concern. I certainly wouldn't say that it retroactively reflects on allegations she made several years ago. Yes, exactly! It doesn't matter, and opinions on Reade's allegations are pretty much going to be set in stone for most people based on events from years ago. That's part of why I said it does not feel like an interesting or novel discussion, but an excuse for a Joe Biden Two Minute Hate. Eletriarnation fucked around with this message at 06:14 on May 31, 2023 |
|
#
¿
May 31, 2023 06:12
|
|
|
cat botherer posted:The invasion was evil, but it's bizarre to call it a genocide unless we're just going to water that term down beyond all meaning. Given Putin's repeated denial that Ukrainians are a distinct people from Russians and denial that Ukraine as a nation has a right to exist, the discovery of numerous civilian mass graves and other evidence of war crimes in liberated Ukrainian territory, the open intent and constant attempts by the Russian military to destroy myriad civilian targets, the fact that the ICC has issued an arrest warrant for Putin for kidnapping tens to hundreds of thousands of children... I'm curious, what would they need to be doing before you didn't think it was "bizarre" to call the war genocidal?
|
|
#
¿
May 31, 2023 16:52
|
|
|
Ghost Leviathan posted:Why did he bring it up at all? It's hard to know, given that the article does not provide the full transcript of the interview. We have four disconnected quotes from Kerry which are presumably responses to questions or part of some discussion, but we have nothing from the interviewer. A pessimistic reading of this might imply that whoever wrote the article was mining for quotes to get people mad at John Kerry, especially with the "but refrained from asking Americans to give up steaks" in the subtitle. Good job, I guess? Eletriarnation fucked around with this message at 12:46 on Jun 8, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Jun 8, 2023 12:44
|
|
|
Byzantine posted:Sounds serious! Surely the Antifascist Party arrested their leaders and executed them for treason, then outlawed the fascist party and brutally suppressed them before they could try again, right? Not exactly. You see, we have this concept called "rule of law". Broadly speaking, it means that is everyone is accountable to the same laws and legal processes regardless of how politically delicate the matter may be. So, the majority party can't just arrest and execute people because it has decided that they have done a Really Bad Thing. Treason in particular has a really narrow definition from what I recall and it's not clear that charging January 6 perpetrators with it would hold up in court in any way. Capital punishment also has to go through a lengthy process including numerous appeals, so even if it was on the table there's no way that it would have been carried out by this point without a serious diversion from said process. Of course, you probably knew all this and were just being facetious but it's not clear what your point would be other than "we should suspend rule of law when it seems like a good idea" and I think you should just say that if it's what you're after.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2023 19:14
|
|
|
Harold Fjord posted:You can think that but not seeing the magic eye image doesn't make you smarter than everyone who sees it The neat thing about magic eye images is that the composites you see aren't actually there, it's your mind playing tricks on you. You're telling on yourself when you use that as your analogy for a conspiracy theory that you believe in.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 30, 2023 16:06
|
|
|
I AM GRANDO posted:If it so happens that Biden loses a close race because of democrats’ love of Israel, I think the most likely outcome is a months-long scolding of arabs and leftists for being ungrateful and throwing the vulnerable to the wolves, which fades by midterms. When have democrats ever listened to public opinion where public opinion departs from maintaining the status quo? I guess Biden tried student loan forgiveness. If he actually loses because of this I think you're right, but I think the confidence people feel about saying they won't vote Biden a year from now is not going to be borne out in the results when they think "huh, do I want Donald loving Trump to have another crack at it?" ^^^ yeah, these thoughts are along the same lines as the ones I'm having
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2023 00:03
|
|
|
Tnega posted:I do not mean this as a "DEMS BAD" kind of post, but what is Biden's story going in to 2024. Many of the unions got their sick pay eventually, but my broke-brain remembers him breaking the strike instead. The American rescue plan was brought up, but it was two years ago, and just mentioning it reminds me of the math that says $1400 is not, in fact $2000. Abortion is a big issue, and while there isn't much The President can do about it, it is another tick in the L column in my book. There's also the whole Israel thing, but I accept AIPAC won long ago on that one. So, all these and more paint a picture of a president flailing and failing. Yes, Trump is obviously not good, and his presidency is in fact responsible for the issues above, but if your issue is that someone took a crap on the floor, and the person with the shovel explicitly with the mandate of cleaning it up doesn't appear to be doing that, well, who is your immediate ire going to be directed towards? This kind of feels like it boils down to "How is Biden going to convince people who aren't paying attention to vote for him?" and I'm not sure if that is a solvable problem. You kind of have to pay attention to know what's going on. e: if abortion is a tick in the L column for you, why would you consider not voting D in the general election? Is there any scenario where that makes sense? Eletriarnation fucked around with this message at 16:18 on Nov 27, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2023 16:09
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Removing kids that use phones during class from the class would be fine after a number of warnings. Or forcing a check in check out system. I have no issue with preventing their use during class, and schools do need to be able to enforce that. I feel like proposing that teachers just do the work to manage which children are allowed to have phones and when is a nonstarter. Like you said, they already have the technical authority to do this, but teachers are famously overworked and in this case I think they'd be undersupported by parents as well. Having a regular procedure for dealing with phones enshrines them as a distraction in the day's schedule, whereas if the kids just kept them at home they'd be no worse off than kids were 20 years ago before smartphones were ubiquitous.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2023 16:13
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:I've already provided my own personal examples of why this doesn't work. Yes, I read all your posts on this topic. I would characterize them as coming less from a place of "this doesn't work" and more "I don't like this", but if I try to find things that fit in the first position I have (bolding mine): Heck Yes! Loam! posted:I already posted what a sensible policy was, I'm not doing it again. Also y'all are putting lots of words in my mouth that I didn't argue. What I will say is that banning phones will just lead to the ban being ignored by students and parents, so having rules and enforcing them while allowing students to have access to their devices outside of class time seems more than reasonable. So, this is basically just "you can't do this because people won't do it". To which I say first, it sounds like we haven't tried and don't know yet, and second, it would be pretty straightforward to make the penalty for bringing phones to school untenable for most offenders. Brought your phone? Cool, we're gonna take it from you and either your parent can come pick it up themselves or we will mail it back to you at the start of next week. Heck Yes! Loam! posted:... The skills that kids will need to use with phones in the real world can largely picked up outside of school, but to the extent school needs to teach them it could be done with on-site school devices instead of using the students' own phones. It would probably be easier to teach things using devices that meet a common standard anyway, instead of whatever the student happens to walk in the door holding. The second issue is actually a problem with the buses, not with phones, and if that's resolved the phone is unnecessary. If the students didn't have phones, it would be possible to change the policy so that a staff member would remain on site until they were picked up following extracurriculars (which was normal when I was a kid, and seems superior from a legal liability standpoint regardless) or at the very least a land line could be added in a spot that doesn't need a staff member to access (also formerly normal, and not expensive). Eletriarnation fucked around with this message at 16:40 on Nov 28, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2023 16:34
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Lol at " if only they paid a teacher or bus driver to be present" If they think it's important, they might dedicate some money for it. That is usually how organizations work. Again, this was normal 20 years ago. I don't think they need to be policed outside of class - if the kid can turn the phone off and put it away when school starts, ignore it all day long, and then take it out at the end of the day when they're waiting for pickup that's not a problem and I don't think it should be restricted. The clear problem is that kids aren't doing this. Maybe more of them would find themselves capable of it if that was the only way to have a phone after school, IDK.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2023 16:48
|
|
|
Heck Yes! Loam! posted:Yeah cool welcome to my position this entire time. No, I'm not assuming any such thing. What I am assuming is that it will be more straightforward and effective to have a comprehensive policy to prevent cell phone distractions at the school level than for each and every teacher to find their own way to try to teach around their presence without support. Not a perfect situation, but better than what we have now. I'm also the last person to propose that public servants be asked to take on more responsibilities without being given the resources they need. If you're just going to shoot down any idea that requires additional time investment on the basis of "well, paying for anything additional ever is a nonstarter" then it's going to be hard to have much of a discussion that isn't "how do we keep doing the status quo". Eletriarnation fucked around with this message at 17:07 on Nov 28, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2023 17:03
|
|
|
Yeah to be clear, I am not proposing that teachers be asked to search backpacks or pockets. I think about it like when, as a kid, I forgot that I had a small knife in my pocket before going to school. I knew this was strictly forbidden, and if a teacher even saw the knife I'd be in a lot of trouble. I kept it in my pocket all day long, told no one, and acted like it wasn't there so it wasn't an issue. If kids have the self-control to do this with cell phones and then just take them out at the end of the day when they're necessary to call transportation or whatever, I don't see how that would be a problem.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 28, 2023 17:13
|
|
|
It feels like the lesser of two evils conversation is really deontology vs. utilitarianism, a dispute that we aren't arguing at the right level to resolve and would be very unlikely to resolve even if we were. All of this hypothesizing about how Joe Biden or the Democratic Party will act or not in response to your individual vote is silly - they won't notice or care about your individual vote, especially if you don't cast it at all.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2023 21:08
|
|
|
Tiny Timbs posted:Yeah this guy needs to resign and Biden needs to accept it. What an incredible failure of judgment. Given how we have neither ill intent nor actual consequences associated with this incident and there apparently wasn't any kind of policy covering how it should have been done, it's not clear to me how anyone would be served by firing Austin and having to put another SecDef through confirmation. I mean, yeah, he hosed up, but it's already a public embarrassment to him. I don't see why it needs to be more.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 9, 2024 22:46
|
|
|
selec posted:It’s done in secret, but it’s not a secret that politicians will and have historically done really greasy poo poo to get things done. Let me see if I'm getting your viewpoint right. "Well, I acknowledge that the Democrats need every single vote they can possibly get in the Senate to pass anything and I see that a couple of the Senators are very stridently against the things I want. The fact that the other Democrats can't convince them must mean that the other Democrats (or the leadership, at least) are either incompetent or not actually motivated to accomplish things. I don't know how they would do this, but a truly effective party would find a way to pass policies even when those policies don't have majority support." Is that inaccurate? It seems like an unrealistically difficult standard to reach - even impossible, since there will always be things that you want and most but not all of 50 Democratic Senators would want. It's also a very convenient standard if you've decided going in that nothing the Democrats do will make them worthy of your support. Eletriarnation fucked around with this message at 21:32 on Jan 19, 2024 |
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2024 21:15
|
|
|
Gripweed posted:The Democrats are running on the idea than Jan6 wasn't just a rowdy protest or whatever, it was an insurrection. It was an act so outside of American political norms that it qualifies as an attempt to overthrow the government. I think you're exaggerating how many people have said "we need a strong Republican party" (who has said that recently, other than Nancy Pelosi?) but assuming you're referring to her I also think you're misunderstanding what "strong" means here - it's not "powerful", it's "ideologically coherent and able to focus itself on a common goal". She said that in the context of McCarthy being unable to rally the House GOP effectively right after becoming Speaker, because if people are going to keep electing Republicans to occasionally have a majority then they need to at least be able to pass a budget to keep the country from burning down around all of us.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2024 21:29
|
|
|
selec posted:A truly effective party leadership is capable of pressuring members with carrots and sticks to get important policy passed. Sure, but the Democratic Party has been passing *some* policies, arguably quite important ones. You're just defining the line of "enough policy for me to think you're not trash" a bit farther out than where they have reached. How do you define where to put that line, especially in the context of the bare majority? Also, "with carrots and sticks" might as well be handwaving here - it seems accurate that you do not have a specific idea how they would do that. e: This bit greatly reinforces my belief that your standard is coming from a place of being intentionally impossible: quote:But you can never trust a wealthy person to do something that wouldn't benefit them directly, so that's why the fun scenario of the standard methods of getting people to comply like your David Boies approach I outlined above are just that--a fantasy. Those tools are only ever turned on rape victims, whistleblowers, and other problems for the ruling class. Manchin and Sinema aren't problems for the working class, they are tools for it. There is no meaningful force to oppose them because they are functioning as intended. Eletriarnation fucked around with this message at 21:42 on Jan 19, 2024 |
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2024 21:36
|
|
|
selec posted:And I've said specifically how underhanded political pressure could be applied in this day and age, giving a specific example of a person and firm known to do just those things! You can just go google "david boies black cube" if you want to know more, but I got a probe previously in this thread for just listing out black bag political tricks that have been used in the past in DC, so you're gonna have to do your own research beyond that, people are really weird about discussing it. Uh, well, from a bit of reading along those lines - if your suggestion is "hire a P.I. firm to blackmail the target" then I think it's extremely obvious both (1) why that might not be as effective on a sitting U.S. Senator as on some young actresses, and (2) why that might cause some undesirable blowback if discovered. It seems like a pretty silly idea to me and I don't think that the other U.S. Senators discarding it out of hand means that they are incompetent or unmotivated. e: Was it even effective on the actresses? I mean, Weinstein was exposed shortly after he (well, Boies Schiller) signed the contract with Black Cube from what I see in the first article I'm reading. Seems both risky and ineffective TBH. Eletriarnation fucked around with this message at 21:57 on Jan 19, 2024 |
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2024 21:51
|
|
|
Bolding mine:selec posted:It’s not blackmail, that’s a crime. You get guys like David Boies or Dershowitz on your team to keep it all legal, and to keep the illegal parts off the record. That’s how the ruling class does it, do you think if the people who have the power and resources to hire those kinds of people couldn’t get it done? This is the great thing about being a conspiracy theorist, you get to claim that the total lack of any evidence for your argument is part of the results of the conspiracy. I mean, there's nothing for me to really respond to here. Cool, you "just know" that the Democrats' inability to make grand strides (grand enough for you, personally) with a bare majority is because they're all poo poo. Literally anyone reading your posts in this thread would have long since picked it up already, but here we are again.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2024 22:08
|
|
|
selec posted:I don't see it as a conspiracy theory, because I'm not positing secret meetings or secret plans or secret motivations. Rich people are rich, have the most resources, are able to corrupt governing structures through that wealth and influence, and continue to pursue more wealth and influence in part by advantages gained via that corruption. They hire black hat "investigation" firms to help make their problems go away. What's the conspiracy, that they secretly do have grievances against Manchin and Sinema? That rich people are a class and tend to have some overriding class interests? The conspiracy is the idea that the bills you like aren't passing because their purported supporters in the Senate aren't motivated or skilled enough to pull the right dirty tricks (or worse, don't really support those bills), vs. the simple truth that those bills do not have majority support and Americans will need to elect more Senators who are in favor of them for them to pass.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2024 22:35
|
|
|
selec posted:You’re really close here, but I think this synthesis gets to how I feel about it: Right, and that will work for some bills. Again, the Democratic Party has passed some pretty significant and useful legislation recently - not nearly as much as any of us would like, but impressive in my book considering the tiny majorities they have to work with. However, there will always be some policies which are a bridge too far and by hook or by crook, they won't be able to get 50 votes together. That's the nature of political consensus and having a decision-making body with a spectrum of beliefs. If you are motivated to find something to point at and say "Well, the Democrats are useless or they would have fixed this already", you will never have to work very hard. So, if that's as deep as your argument goes then it stands to reason that there might be no pleasing you. e: This feels like the comedy sketch where an engineer is trying to explain to a PM that he can't draw a four sided triangle, or a red triangle using a blue pen. Sometimes things just aren't possible. You can't "use sticks", whatever that means, on someone who has truly resolved that they absolutely won't support the thing you want. We accept this with the Republicans (or at least I think we do, maybe we'd still be having this discussion even if the Democrats hadn't had a majority recently) but somehow there's the idea that Schumer et al. could totally flip Manchin and Sinema to support whatever if they Just Cared Enough. Eletriarnation fucked around with this message at 00:00 on Jan 20, 2024 |
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2024 23:30
|
|
|
A big flaming stink posted:Do you have any idea how popular legal weed is in the American public Yeah, "majority support" there is referring to Senators (and Representatives, just not in the example that sparked the conversation) - not the voting public. I have not denied that the rich have class solidarity at any point, and I am not sure how that being true would contradict anything I have said. To be honest, that's kind of a fuzzy statement that feels not straightforward to disprove even if I wanted to try. Eletriarnation fucked around with this message at 01:33 on Jan 20, 2024 |
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2024 01:29
|
|
|
Trazz posted:It's ironic how CSPAM has better political discussion than D&D has You're not really making it better if your posts are just gonna be scintillating commentary like this. Also, I imagine a lot of D&D posters would disagree with you quite strongly.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2024 00:28
|
|
|
SgtSteel91 posted:Yes, I know that not voting Dem or Voting third party is one less vote to keep Trump out of office… but come on there needs to be some accountability or a way to show dissatisfaction with the administration’s handling of Israel in addition to boycotts of McDonalds, Starbucks, protests, etc that’s going to lead to actual changes or do some real damage to Dems so they get their act together It's going to be really hard to use the general election to meaningfully hold the Democrats to account for their various terrible-but-not-fatal shortcomings when, in our first-past-the-post system, the alternative to them continuing to win the general election is a sheer descent into fascism. As depressing as this will be to hear, and I am sure you have heard it before, the true battle for the direction of the party is in the primaries. Not voting for Biden when the alternative is Trump is not going to send the "don't be an rear end in a top hat" message that you want to send. And yes, we don't get a real primary this time because Biden is the incumbent... but that's again because the party is hanging on by the skin of its teeth against a sheer descent into fascism.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2024 19:25
|
|
|
It seems like the nature of legal argument that you try to put forth every point that you have in your favor, even if it's based on a hypothetical like "we decided not to make someone our nominee after they won the primary free and clear". I don't think that would be very likely to actually happen for a few different reasons. In any case, voting for a candidate in the primaries who is actually left of the alternative will be a more effective way of sending the message that you want leftist policy than staying home because a liberal is up against a fascist. Eletriarnation fucked around with this message at 20:17 on Jan 22, 2024 |
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2024 20:13
|
|
|
ex post facho posted:The party is under no obligation to be impartial and is obviously not impartial during its primary process. How do you square that with telling people to express their dissatisfaction with the direction of the party during a primary? Uh... I didn't design the system, man. The world isn't perfect. Make a billion dollars and then you can have a guarantee that the party will listen to you, but as a random schmo this is the best suggestion I have. Again, you aren't going to get a better result from making the Democrats lose in the general which was all I was saying. To be a little bit less flippant, I really don't think that the party leadership would freeze out a candidate who won the primary free and clear. It would be a tremendous self-inflicted wound.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2024 20:22
|
|
|
Right, and I agree that's a valid complaint but I don't really have a compelling alternative for you because our system kinda sucks. Sorry, you will have to get more grassroots support behind a candidate who lacks institutional support. That's how it is.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2024 20:37
|
|
|
Misunderstood posted:An eighth will generally go for about $45 in Connecticut but you can get an ounce in Massachusetts for about $100 if you go to the right place. Doubt there's any habitual smokers buying their stuff legally in Connecticut; if you buy it enough that the cost means anything to you our dispensaries aren't worth it. Good in a pinch, though. The taxes are definitely annoying. This is hilarious to me because in NC it's still technically illegal but the THCA "hemp" loophole has been stretched large enough for I-40 to go through it. You can buy bulk online for under $100/oz and the USPS will deliver it to your mailbox.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2024 16:05
|
|
|
Star Man posted:USPS can send a parcel to the US Postal Inspection Service if they have reason to think there's a controlled substance inside. I had to once as a clerk because the box reeked of weed. Right, in the case of NC the trick is that the specific chemical (Delta-9 THC) used by federal law to define a chunk of plant as completely legal "hemp" vs. Schedule 1 "cannabis" isn't actually the only one which can get you high and improved processing methods have allowed producers to create extremely high THCA product which is still, legally, hemp. So, the product is being openly labeled and sold as what it is and the USPS doesn't have any legal basis to treat it any differently from a box full of pine straw. No one in the state legislature wants to rock the boat and close the loophole because, presumably, farmers are making bank.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2024 16:58
|
|
|
Well, in NC since there's no specific, comprehensive state law about it the only applicable tax is standard 7.5% sales tax. I assume the same is the case in other states where the federal loophole is being exploited.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2024 19:58
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 13, 2024 02:34 |
|
|
Got this thread open on one side of the screen, a Rogue Trader playthrough on the other, thinking "the Chaos cults are a little closer to reality than I'd like."
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2024 05:43
|
|