Trump presidency

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Trump presidency

Postby The Great Hippo » Sat Oct 06, 2018 3:05 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:The people arent exactly dying on our doorstep. In the case of, say, Syrians leaving the Turkish refugee camps, it's the equivalent of the guy leaving a homeless shelter, passing by the crummier houses, and depending upon whom you ask either asking/demanding to come in or sneaking in through your window.

You can argue about the starving man stealing bread to live, but that argument fails when the starving man walks past the bread to steal the caviar.
As sardia points out, that's neither an accurate nor a fair characterization.

But even if it were -- whether a man is freezing to death at the entrance of a homeless shelter or a 5-star hotel, it remains a sin to not to let him in.

duodecimus
Posts: 43
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 12:25 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby duodecimus » Sat Oct 06, 2018 3:10 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:You can argue about the starving man stealing bread to live, but that argument fails when the starving man walks past the bread to steal the caviar.


The bread stall is empty. The starving man would happily take the bread, but there is no bread left. Or at least, the people running the bread stalls are saying that.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10548
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Sat Oct 06, 2018 3:33 am UTC

I'd have more sympathy for Turkey's situation if they werent the ones demanding the war in the first place and dragging the rest of NATO into it.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6888
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Trump presidency

Postby ucim » Sat Oct 06, 2018 3:43 am UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:The reason I hate that house metaphor so much is how it treats communities. Communities are collectives of people working together to occupy the same space (physically, legally, financially, culturally, or otherwise). A community is made up of compromises...
While that may generally be true of communities, it's not true of countries, and it's not even true of all communities. You are arguing here for some kind of democratic process, but that's not essential to communities or borders. Does the Catholic Church have to allow a coven to do witchcraft in the space bounded by the walls and fences of the Seminary? They can argue and vote all they want, but the Pope will tell them what they can and can't do, based on the Word of God as Divinely Revealed to him. And homes (what we have also called "houses") are sometimes governed democratically, and sometimes by fiat. Depends on who makes up the household, and how old (or capable) they are. Point is, each makes their own rules, and each decides how to make their own rules.

The Great Hippo wrote:But the house metaphor plays into [authoritarian paternalism]. It builds on the paternalistic trope of "My House, My Rules", which is used to justify so much nonsense in America
That metaphor does no such thing. It is merely the smallest reasonable unit of "boundaries" I could find, and it preserves many of the essential features of boundaries.

It's a metaphor, not an identity. And it's an illustration, not a proof. It gives insight, but not answers. And things change with scale, but looking at what things they are, how they change, and at what scale they begin to transform, is a useful exercise.

The Great Hippo wrote:Our immigration policy shouldn't be based on who got here first, or who owns the house -- but rather, on a conversation that addresses our concerns, but also balances those concerns against the concerns of those who seek entry.
This is true of house as well as country. It's true in a different way, but it's still true. And we can even look at scale to see whether mere differences in scale change the answer. Simple example, the guy sleeping on the sofa. If it's a five person household, we're talking about adding one fifth to the house population. In country immigration terms, it would be like allowing sixty million people into the United States. For example, all of France. Or all of Syria, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia together. So... if New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania decide to let all of Syria, Jordan, and Saudi Arabia "sleep on the sofa", that would be a similar impact as one housemate deciding to let his newfound friend sleep on the sofa of the house he shares with four other people.

US immigration stands around a million a year. that's 1/3 of one percent of the population. It's hard to come up with an equivalent for a house, but in impact it could be the equivalent of letting the newfound friend (with whatever story) sleep on the sofa for a week or so (guaranteed to leave because math), instead of indefinitely. No, again, it's not an identical circumstance, but helps visualize the scale of the impact.

The number of refugees to the US stands at around 50 thousand annually. You can do the math to come up with a "house" analogy of impact, but I'd say it's like inviting somebody to dinner who really needs it. Once a year.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Trump presidency

Postby The Great Hippo » Sat Oct 06, 2018 4:05 am UTC

ucim wrote:While that may generally be true of communities, it's not true of countries, and it's not even true of all communities. You are arguing here for some kind of democratic process, but that's not essential to communities or borders.
No, I'm not arguing for some kind of democratic process. I'm arguing for a process other than "I Get To Decide Who Lives In My House, That's That, Also My Decision Is Final". One that acknowledges that a community's right to decide who does and doesn't belong doesn't always trump my right to literal survival.

I've read the rest of your post over a couple of times and I'm still not really sure what you're trying to say? It doesn't sound like you're disagreeing with me -- just saying you find the house metaphor useful. I mean, okay; that's fine. It clearly doesn't map well to reality or morality, though -- and it still does promote the narrative of paternal authoritarianism in regards to immigration.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10548
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Sat Oct 06, 2018 4:21 am UTC

But what you are asking for is an immigration policy that overrules the wishes of the public, or at least large sections of it.

The public has the right to elect officials to run the country and set immigration policy, and the public has the right to elect different officials. This is how democracy works. And when the officials from all the major parties are refusing to adopt an immigration policy large chunks of the public desires, they have the right to form new parties and get new pools of officials. This is also how democracy works. But be warned, because the results are far from pretty.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Trump presidency

Postby The Great Hippo » Sat Oct 06, 2018 4:32 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:But what you are asking for is an immigration policy that overrules the wishes of the public, or at least large sections of it.

The public has the right to elect officials to run the country and set immigration policy, and the public has the right to elect different officials. This is how democracy works. And when the officials from all the major parties are refusing to adopt an immigration policy large chunks of the public desires, they have the right to form new parties and get new pools of officials. This is also how democracy works. But be warned, because the results are far from pretty.
When the public elects officials who promote amoral policies, those policies don't somehow magically "become" moral just because they were put in place via a democratic process.

Regardless, I'm not asking for us to overthrow the will of the majority; I'm asking for the majority to realize that "I've Got Mine, Fuck You" is neither a coherent nor morally defensible immigration policy.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6888
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Trump presidency

Postby ucim » Sat Oct 06, 2018 4:51 am UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:I've read the rest of your post over a couple of times and I'm still not really sure what you're trying to say?
Two things.

1: Borders are not immoral. They are part of what defines a state. Rules and rule-setting mechanisms and ideology (theocracy, democracy, autocracy, communism, whatever) are another part. Given that borders exist and are generally necessary, controlling borders is also generally necessary, and not immoral. Open borders work well enough when people have similar values and resources, but that's not always the case.

2: The immediate (adverse) impact of refugees and immigration isn't that great for the United States as a whole. There is a long term benefit, so long as the receiving nation isn't swamped. We are not. But being swamped is a possibility in some cases.

The house (or community) analogy makes personal what is otherwise impersonal, but one must be mindful of the effects of scale.

The post was not advocating any particular ideology or immigration policy, but rather, was addressing the underlying framework and ideas that had been called into question. And I was deliberately not framing it within a democracy, but more generally. The arguments and analogies are independent of ideology. In fact, differing ideologies are part of what make borders happen in the first place. (It would be so simple if everyone just agreed. With me.)

The Great Hippo wrote:Regardless, I'm not asking for us to overthrow the will of the majority; I'm asking for the majority to realize that "I've Got Mine, Fuck You" is neither a coherent nor morally defensible immigration policy.
And I agree with that. It doesn't follow that open borders are the best answer though. There's a balance, and I was addressing the framework without which balance cannot be achieved.

In fact, in politics in general (especially the polarized now), having the side I favor "win" over the other side is not what I want. Rather, I want my side to "win over" the other side.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Trump presidency

Postby The Great Hippo » Sat Oct 06, 2018 5:05 am UTC

ucim wrote:1: Borders are not immoral. They are part of what defines a state. Rules and rule-setting mechanisms and ideology (theocracy, democracy, autocracy, communism, whatever) are another part. Given that borders exist and are generally necessary, controlling borders is also generally necessary, and not immoral. Open borders work well enough when people have similar values and resources, but that's not always the case.
Right. I've said that borders are not immoral -- several times, in this very thread! Did you think I was saying otherwise?

Borders are amoral; they have no moral quantity. It's what you do with them and how you enforce them that matters.
ucim wrote:2: The immediate (adverse) impact of refugees and immigration isn't that great for the United States as a whole. There is a long term benefit, so long as the receiving nation isn't swamped. We are not. But being swamped is a possibility in some cases.
Maybe? I don't know? It seems unlikely that it's a genuine possibility, but I admit I don't know enough about international politics to genuinely say. But it sounds like we're agreeing, here?

I guess I'm confused; in your previous post, I got the sense you were trying to disagree with me on something? But it sounds like you don't disagree at all -- except that you think "Who I Let Stay In My House" is both useful as a metaphor and not one which furthers a paternalistic authoritarian approach to immigration.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6888
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Trump presidency

Postby ucim » Sat Oct 06, 2018 5:39 am UTC

The Great Hippo wrote: except that you think "Who I Let Stay In My House" is both useful as a metaphor and not one which furthers a paternalistic authoritarian approach to immigration.
Yes. Not every quote implies disagreement. Sometimes it's an elaboration, or what I'm quoting is a useful summation.

Yeah it's imperfect. What isn't? :)

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10548
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Sat Oct 06, 2018 3:49 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:When the public elects officials who promote amoral policies, those policies don't somehow magically "become" moral just because they were put in place via a democratic process.

Regardless, I'm not asking for us to overthrow the will of the majority; I'm asking for the majority to realize that "I've Got Mine, Fuck You" is neither a coherent nor morally defensible immigration policy.


I was not making a moral argument. Only an observation/warning.


As for convincing the majority, that's actually part of the reason I had proposed/spit-balled the system where a quasi-jury votes on whether to allow an immigrant to become a citizen, since it does give them a lot of control over immigration rather than just letting the politicians decide on behalf of their corporate/illuminati/lizard masters constituants. Plus, it's much, much harder for someone who is anti-immigration to look Jose in the eye as they tell him they don't want him here.

Leovan
Posts: 112
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2016 9:31 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Leovan » Sat Oct 06, 2018 6:01 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:As for convincing the majority, that's actually part of the reason I had proposed/spit-balled the system where a quasi-jury votes on whether to allow an immigrant to become a citizen, since it does give them a lot of control over immigration rather than just letting the politicians decide on behalf of their corporate/illuminati/lizard masters constituants. Plus, it's much, much harder for someone who is anti-immigration to look Jose in the eye as they tell him they don't want him here.


That's kind of like the Swiss system. Traditionally you're a citizen of a town, not the country. I'm technically a citizen of Seeberg, a town I've never lived in and have visited twice just to see it and because they have a nice restaurant there. Normally, when you become a citizen of Switzerland, you have to apply in your town, and then depending on the size it's either decided by jury or through a democratic vote. Traditionally this is because it used to be that safety nets were by the town for its citizens, not national. So if you fell on hard times your neighbors would be obligated to help you, but that means they also want to decide who they accept.
The whole process has pros and cons. The advantage is you can heavily influence the result. If you're in the local sports/chapel/shooting club, you've got half the town in your pocket by default. Learning the language, going to local affairs, making friends, etc is a surefire way to get approved, they may even waive some of the requirements.
However, being different and not fitting in is likely to get you rejected even if you do meet the requirements. If you're not outgoing and have a foreign sounding name, they'll be very critical. I worked with someone who was on his local jury and he had no qualms about telling me straight out that he rejects every Muslim/Turk/Serbian (unless they're in his sports club). Sure, he'll say that he rejected them for not being well integrated because they didn't know the local butcher's first name, but he'll do it. Having to say no straight to their face didn't faze him. A friend of mine moved towns because she knew that the jury members were more accepting of Germans one town over than in the one she lived in currently.
Other downsides include needing to live in that town for ten years, regardless of how long you've been in Switzerland (they're trying to change that to 10 in Switzerland, 5 in the town, and for people married to Swiss that's often reduced to 5 total). Each town's rules and requirements are also slightly different.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10548
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Sat Oct 06, 2018 7:42 pm UTC

Leovan wrote:I worked with someone who was on his local jury and he had no qualms about telling me straight out that he rejects every Muslim/Turk/Serbian (unless they're in his sports club). Sure, he'll say that he rejected them for not being well integrated because they didn't know the local butcher's first name, but he'll do it.


Off topic, but why Serbians? I've known and worked with quite a few, as well as some Bosnians (though not at the same time), and I've never had problems with them.

Also, do you also not have something similar to regular jury selection for this, where the lawyers (attempt to) screen out the crazies and racists?

User avatar
Grop
Posts: 1998
Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2008 10:36 am UTC
Location: France

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Grop » Sat Oct 06, 2018 8:02 pm UTC

Most probably they are merely Eastern Europe (for a Cold War definition of Eastern Europe) and therefore prejudiced against. Anyway my impression is that the Swiss look down on everyone else.

(I wouldn't claim that Serbians wouldn't be prejudiced against in France before someone asks).
Last edited by Grop on Sat Oct 06, 2018 8:56 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

Leovan
Posts: 112
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2016 9:31 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Leovan » Sat Oct 06, 2018 8:27 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Off topic, but why Serbians? I've known and worked with quite a few, as well as some Bosnians (though not at the same time), and I've never had problems with them.

Also, do you also not have something similar to regular jury selection for this, where the lawyers (attempt to) screen out the crazies and racists?


Because in the 90's we had a lot of refugees from that area come in, most of them fairly poor and poorly educated. They formed ghettos and weren't as orderly as the Swiss, which gave them a reputation for crime, which is now slowly being eroded as 2nd and 3rd generation are diffusing through the workforce and becoming teachers, doctors, etc. Same as Italians in the 60/70's (with the difference that Italian is actually an official language, and they came for economic reasons rather than war). The current immigrants are Africans and Syrians/Muslims.

The jury in this case is more of a commission. Towns are anywhere from 200-3000 people, 10k is a city, so if you're not having a general democratic vote on it, it's easier to get 5-10 volunteers who sit in on all five citizenship hearings throughout the year. Sometimes the commission will simply make a recommendation for the democratic vote, but most people will follow that if they don't know the immigrants personally. No lawyers involved in general. We don't have juries for criminal trials, just judges.

Grop wrote:Most probably they are merely Eastern Europe (for a Cold War definition of Eastern Europe) and therefore prejudiced against. Anyway my impression is that the Swiss look down on everyone else.


Serbians had a higher than average immigration rate in the 90's, but most of that also goes for the other Eastern Europeans, correct. And your impression of most Swiss is also correct. We're well-educated, well-traveled, well-off. There's a lot to be proud of, but part of the Swiss identity is that we're humble. So we also look down on other well-off countries for bragging about it (like Americans). We're very orderly, so if you're not mowing your lawn at least once a week you're scum (but never EVER on a Sunday. That'll make us call the police on you and they will come and tell you to stop or give you a fine). Young people are avid travelers and are fairly open, then when they settle down they know how glad they are to be living in Switzerland and not one of those other dirty countries. The transformation is quite stunning.

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 2149
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Sableagle » Sat Oct 06, 2018 10:00 pm UTC

Zohar wrote:You don't know what you're talking about. Please spare me your quote sniping and general obliviousness.

CorruptUser wrote:Just admit that you were wrong ... and your entire life, cyberspace and meatspace both, would be orders of magnitude more enjoyable for you and others around you.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10548
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Sat Oct 06, 2018 11:24 pm UTC

Instead of just giving me random links to youtube, could you summarize?

asoban
Posts: 26
Joined: Sat Jul 13, 2013 11:00 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby asoban » Sun Oct 07, 2018 2:55 am UTC

Is anyone else bothered by the absolute certainty that a lot of people have that Kavanaugh is indeed a rapist?

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6598
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Thesh » Sun Oct 07, 2018 3:31 am UTC

It seems to me that you don't really care whether or not Kavanaugh is a rapist, and just want to make excuses for why he should be confirmed no matter what. I'm guessing you also had absolutely no problems with all the accusations against Clinton - I'd be surprised if you weren't chanting "lock her up". You are nothing but an ideologue - willing to make excuses to support any Republican, and any excuse to hate a Democrat.

And what is all this for? To stop minorities from getting civil rights? To stop poor people from getting healthcare? To stop police from having any oversight whatsoever? So you can force religion in schools? So you can make the most ridiculous anti-abortion laws? So that you can completely eliminate all protections that anyone has from corporations? So you can destroy the environment? Nothing they are doing here is good. On every single issue where Republicans disagree with Democrats, Republicans take the stance that kills the most people. That's what Kavanaugh is all about - he has no ethics, no concern for how his actions effect others, and will do everything he can to support corporations, the police state, and religion over the American people.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 2149
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Sableagle » Sun Oct 07, 2018 3:51 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Instead of just giving me random links to youtube, could you summarize?


You didn't notice that four of those links were to news sites and didn't even get as far as seeing the titles of those YouTube videos, so you've probably already stopped reading this, but what the heck? Here's the summary:
Back in the '90s, enough of the Serbs, collectively, decided to exterminate all the non-Serbs in Yugoslavia, erase Bosnia, Kosovo and Croatia from the map forever and take all the land and all the stuff for themselves, and set out to do so. They found along the way that, while women would rather die than give up their husbands' hiding places and die, they'd give up their husbands' hiding places rather than watch the Serbs who just gang-raped their 12-year-old daughters also gang-rape their 9-year-old daughters, so the Serbs used that threat as a way of finding out where the resistance fighters were hiding, and some of us are so very fucking far from willing to forgive that and move on that being decent to Serbs born after '95 takes serious effort.
Also, some of them want to try again.
Try, if you'd like, to imagine yourself as the grandchild of Holocaust survivors and imagine you've just met a bunch of 11- to 15-year-olds named Adolf, Josef, Heinrich and Hermann by parents who legally changed their names to Göring, Himmler, Göbbels and Hitler as a show of dedication to the ideals of their personal heroes. You can't blame the kids for that but you're probably not going to be comfortable around them for at least 10 years.
Zohar wrote:You don't know what you're talking about. Please spare me your quote sniping and general obliviousness.

CorruptUser wrote:Just admit that you were wrong ... and your entire life, cyberspace and meatspace both, would be orders of magnitude more enjoyable for you and others around you.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6813
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby sardia » Sun Oct 07, 2018 3:51 am UTC

asoban wrote:Is anyone else bothered by the absolute certainty that a lot of people have that Kavanaugh is indeed a rapist?

Quick question, do you think he's lying (or exaggerating his abstinence)about his drinking? Are you bothered by how sure people are that he never drank, never fucked or any other frat boy behaviors? Because then we are defaulting to partisan behaviors.

It won't convict kavanaugh, but Unless you are counting failed convictions, the number of false allegations are pretty low. The numbers of unreported and reported rapes/unwanted sexual conduct is pretty high. At least 1 in 5 women.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6888
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Trump presidency

Postby ucim » Sun Oct 07, 2018 4:08 am UTC

asoban wrote:Is anyone else bothered by the absolute certainty that a lot of people have that Kavanaugh is indeed a rapist?

It doesn't matter if he's a rapist or not. He's not unqualified because he had drinking binges when he was 17. He's unqualified because he brazenly lied under oath. (Does this sound familiar?)

The lies are easily uncovered by a quick search of slang terms. I'm surprised that this didn't come out in the hearing itself, but that was obviously intended to be a cursory questioning to give Republicans cover for ramming this through anyway.

He's also unqualified based on his demeanor and his biased and belligerent attitude, which came out as a result of the hearings. This is the opposite of what you want as a judge.

And irrespective of his qualifications, I'm highly suspicious that he may well hold that the President is immune from prosecution and can pardon himself.

But he was rammed through because of all his flaws, not despite them. With Trump as our Supreme Leader, this is the new face of governance. It shows the power and strength of the new Republican leadership - the ability to buffalo the truth to get done whatever the Leader wants done, no matter what the facts are.

Does anybody not see a dictatorship forming yet?

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10548
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Sun Oct 07, 2018 4:31 am UTC

@Sable

Most major Islamic countries have committed a significant genocide or ethnic cleansing sometime in the past century, or even in just my lifetime. Many genocides/cleansings are still ongoing, and I'm not just talking about Syria. So should the Swiss reject all Muslims too?

asoban
Posts: 26
Joined: Sat Jul 13, 2013 11:00 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby asoban » Sun Oct 07, 2018 4:59 am UTC

Thesh, were you responding to me?

Quick question, do you think he's lying (or exaggerating his abstinence)about his drinking?


I don't think he's answered untruthfully, but I do think that he's certainly exaggerating. My read is that his drinking during high school and college really probably isn't something that should trip him up provided that he's not an alcoholic now. However, telling the complete truth would probably give an opening for those that oppose him to sink him. I don't think I've ever seen any SC canidate who's not done that. If there was ever a time that someone could get nominated to the supreme court by being completely open and honest about themselves and their judicial philosophy, it's long past.

Are you bothered by how sure people are that he never drank, never fucked or any other frat boy behaviors?


I don't think I've seen that kind of certainty. However, I think I would be. I have been in the past by similar certainty from the groups that I tend to more closely align myself with.

It won't convict kavanaugh, but Unless you are counting failed convictions, the number of false allegations are pretty low. The numbers of unreported and reported rapes/unwanted sexual conduct is pretty high. At least 1 in 5 women.


I think every case should be decided on the evidence. The cases against him are weak. I don't think they even meet the balance of the probabilities. I would also note that roughly only 5% of men are rapists. Most rapists are violent in other parts of their lives and do it more than once.

He's unqualified because he brazenly lied under oath.


Interesting, It's outside of what I'm talking about. So lets look at your evidence.

The lies are easily uncovered by a quick search of slang terms.


Ehhh. Slang is very dependant on the place, time, and social group. This argument would be much stronger if they asked his social group what they meant to corroborate.

He's also unqualified based on his demeanor and his biased and belligerent attitude, which came out as a result of the hearings.


I think this is somewhat subjective. I can certainly see where this argument comes from.

he was rammed through because of all his flaws, not despite them.


That seems like speculation to me.

Does anybody not see a dictatorship forming yet?


Not yet, give it a few more years and we'll see.

gd1
Posts: 369
Joined: Wed Nov 14, 2012 5:42 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby gd1 » Sun Oct 07, 2018 5:28 am UTC

ucim wrote:Does anybody not see a dictatorship forming yet?


I have a feeling the world is coming to its end, but I haven't got any convincing evidence so I'll just let the chips fall where they may.

On the bright side, if the world does end at least we won't have to deal with a dictatorship right?

On the other hand, you have five fingers.
There is no emotion more useless in life than hate.

Opus_723
Posts: 75
Joined: Sun Jan 19, 2014 8:55 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Opus_723 » Sun Oct 07, 2018 5:53 am UTC

asoban wrote:
I think every case should be decided on the evidence. The cases against him are weak. I don't think they even meet the balance of the probabilities. I would also note that roughly only 5% of men are rapists. Most rapists are violent in other parts of their lives and do it more than once.



He is accused of forceful groping and inappropriate contact. WAY more than 5% of men have done that, I guarantee you.

People keep acting like if he's not a violent Law and Order episode rapist then it's fine. The point is that being the kind of asshole who whips it out in front a woman's face as a party prank should still be enough for you to suffer at least some consequences, whether it amounts to a criminal case or not.

duodecimus
Posts: 43
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 12:25 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby duodecimus » Sun Oct 07, 2018 6:22 am UTC

asoban wrote:I think every case should be decided on the evidence.


I totally agree with this, which is why the FBI investigation was so sad.

From https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/bre ... 6eda9ca281
More than 40 people “with potential information into the sexual misconduct allegations” against Kavanaugh, including multiple high school and college classmates of his, tried to contact the FBI, to no avail, NBC News reported.


Turns out, if the guy who recommended the nominee is put in charge of the investigation, it won't go anywhere!

WriteBrainedJR
Posts: 160
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2013 3:08 pm UTC
Location: Right Behind You
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby WriteBrainedJR » Sun Oct 07, 2018 7:58 am UTC

Opus_723 wrote:The point is that being the kind of asshole who whips it out in front a woman's face as a party prank should still be enough for you to suffer at least some consequences, whether it amounts to a criminal case or not.


It's a little crazy to me that this process is being spun as a sign that men everywhere need to be afraid. Kavanaugh's not going to jail, and nobody with any influence is saying that he should. Nobody's saying that he should lose his job, or lose his pension, or even that we should give him a nasty look if we see him in the grocery store. All that's being said is that people who have multiple sexual assault allegations, who go on volatile, partisan rants, and who lie under oath, should not be promoted to the highest court in the land from a court slightly lower than that one.

The Supreme Court is the closest thing America has to a final arbiter of right and wrong. Shouldn't such a body be composed of people who are morally beyond reproach? The Supreme Court is also, by definition, the most important legal body in the country. Shouldn't it be composed of people who are quite consistent in their application of the most basic underpinnings of jurisprudence, like honesty under oath?

Based on what I've seen from Ford and others, I could not vote to convict Kavanaugh of rape beyond a reasonable doubt. Based on what I've seen of Kavanaugh himself, I could easily vote to convict him beyond a reasonable doubt of being an asshole. Based on what I've seen of the two of them, Ford is probably the more credible and certainly the more sympathetic.

There are a bunch of other conservative judges out there. I'm sure one of them has led a pretty blameless life. Maybe you have to go outside the class of prep-school beltway white-shoe assholes that the donor class seems to favor, but that's not the only kind of legal mind in the world. I just don't get why they're insisting on this guy.

I'm not sure if this is ironic or not, but I've never read anything bad written about Merrick Garland, from either side of the political spectrum, beyond the usual "baby killer" slung at anyone who doesn't wanna nuke Roe v. Wade from orbit, or other similar "I disagree with him about my pet issue, and therefore he is bad" type of stuff.

elasto
Posts: 3778
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby elasto » Sun Oct 07, 2018 9:31 am UTC

Exactly.

This hearing was not a court of law. It was a job interview. The standard of evidence was not 'beyond reasonable doubt'. It was 'is this the best candidate for the position?'

If Kavanaugh gets approved for the job, it says less about him and everything about the priorities of the hiring committee, because he plainly isn't the best available by any plausible standard.

WriteBrainedJR wrote:The Supreme Court is the closest thing America has to a final arbiter of right and wrong. Shouldn't such a body be composed of people who are morally beyond reproach? The Supreme Court is also, by definition, the most important legal body in the country. Shouldn't it be composed of people who are quite consistent in their application of the most basic underpinnings of jurisprudence, like honesty under oath?


You'd think so, but this is why politicians should not be involved in judicial appointments. They are incapable of acting in a non-partisan way.

'Separation of powers' is the principle underpinning the constitution, but it becomes meaningless if individuals within each body feel more allegiance to a political party than they do to their body - no different to if individuals within government felt more allegiance to their religion - to the Pope, say - than they did to their country.

Political parties have got way too wide a reach and way too a 'win at all costs mentality' for safety, but of course those with power rarely vote to divest said power except at the point of a pitchfork.

With the executive, the legislature, the judiciary, and the media all becoming increasingly partisan and loyal to 'their side', from whence comes the checks and balances..? Not from the voters, that's for sure; The polarisation there is no less strong. It is in this sense that ucim warns we might be sleepwalking towards some form of dictatorship.

My solution? I don't see anything except to cut off the heads of the snakes: Reform the voting system so that a plurality of political parties is viable.

It's no different to how if a monopoly arose and was severely abusing its market share, as a last resort you'd simply break it apart so that the fragments would fight against one another instead of cooperating.

How to achieve this solution? Can't see any way it comes about short of the pitchforks, unfortunately.

User avatar
Quercus
Posts: 1810
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2013 12:22 pm UTC
Location: London, UK
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Quercus » Sun Oct 07, 2018 11:11 am UTC

WriteBrainedJR wrote: I just don't get why they're insisting on this guy.


My guess is that part of it is probably norm-shifting. You push the outrageous candidate through, everyone reasonable gets all outraged, but then it goes through anyway and people get the subconscious message that a) they are powerless to change the outcome of stuff like this and b) this is the new normal. Therefore there's a little bit less energy and hope in the opposition the next time.

Basically it's a power play - it's not so much that the GOP must have this guy, it's that the democrats really don't want him. It's the GOP saying "we can do whatever we want and you can't stop us".

User avatar
Grop
Posts: 1998
Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2008 10:36 am UTC
Location: France

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Grop » Sun Oct 07, 2018 11:48 am UTC

Sableagle wrote:You didn't notice that four of those links were to news sites and didn't even get as far as seeing the titles of those YouTube videos, so you've probably already stopped reading this, but what the heck? Here's the summary:
Back in the '90s, enough of the Serbs, collectively, decided to exterminate all the non-Serbs in Yugoslavia, erase Bosnia, Kosovo and Croatia from the map forever and take all the land and all the stuff for themselves, and set out to do so. They found along the way that, while women would rather die than give up their husbands' hiding places and die, they'd give up their husbands' hiding places rather than watch the Serbs who just gang-raped their 12-year-old daughters also gang-rape their 9-year-old daughters, so the Serbs used that threat as a way of finding out where the resistance fighters were hiding, and some of us are so very fucking far from willing to forgive that and move on that being decent to Serbs born after '95 takes serious effort.
Also, some of them want to try again.
Try, if you'd like, to imagine yourself as the grandchild of Holocaust survivors and imagine you've just met a bunch of 11- to 15-year-olds named Adolf, Josef, Heinrich and Hermann by parents who legally changed their names to Göring, Himmler, Göbbels and Hitler as a show of dedication to the ideals of their personal heroes. You can't blame the kids for that but you're probably not going to be comfortable around them for at least 10 years.


Sableagle, you seem to be projecting your reasons for the Swiss to hate Serbs because they harmed a third party (although they don't seem to hate Germans, and I am not saying they should). Also not only Serbs born after 1995 can't be held responsible for what Serbia did, but also Serbs born after 1985 or quite possibly earlier. Guess how aged the average Serb immigrant is? And even among Serbs who were adults during the Yougoslavia war, there should be some who weren't responsible for anything.

Serbs are just looked down upon in Europe for the same reason that Mexicans can be looked down upon in North America: they come from a less wealthy country therefore they must be lazy. And they can take our lower paid, difficult jobs because they are hard workers and we don't think too much how that doesn't make any sense.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6598
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Thesh » Sun Oct 07, 2018 2:08 pm UTC

Quercus wrote:
WriteBrainedJR wrote: I just don't get why they're insisting on this guy.


My guess is that part of it is probably norm-shifting. You push the outrageous candidate through, everyone reasonable gets all outraged, but then it goes through anyway and people get the subconscious message that a) they are powerless to change the outcome of stuff like this and b) this is the new normal. Therefore there's a little bit less energy and hope in the opposition the next time.

Basically it's a power play - it's not so much that the GOP must have this guy, it's that the democrats really don't want him. It's the GOP saying "we can do whatever we want and you can't stop us".


It's partly because he is the most willing to protect Presidents from the law, and has the most authoritarian reading of the Constitution imaginable. The final obiective is to create an environment where Republicans can be in complete control over government without having to worry about the voters. After this, they will start cracking down on dissenters and the free press, and will eventually start mass executions. People like Yablo and assoban will make excuses for every single American murdered, and there won't be a single action too extreme for them to support. There isn't a decent Republican today, but the apologists are fucking evil people - completely devoid of morals, willing to do anything in the name of wealth and power.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6813
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby sardia » Sun Oct 07, 2018 2:18 pm UTC

That's a bit of an exaggeration. What you'll see coming is what's already happening.
1. Corruption will be mostly unchecked.
2. Competence in the government will be degraded as civil servants are replaced by Trump loyalists.
3. The environment will be degraded, but mostly impacts poor people.
4. Budgets will get worse as debt increases massively.
5. inequality of wealth will get worse, sapping the strength of economy.
6. climate change will affect the world everywhere from increased military conflict to more disaster money spent.
7. Data collection will be impaired, wasting resources on rumors instead of hard data. (opiate epidemic was only proven via data from dept. of Commerce census data)
8. Immigration will be curtailed (both legal, nonlegal, and refugees)
9. Minority(brown) immigrants will be denied or removed citizenship (either for using benefits, or for committing minor crimes)
10. More voter suppression.
11. Wildcard events as Trumpian instincts towards war clash against saner heads (Example Trump wanted to evacuate Americans from south Korea, a sure sign to North Korea that war was about to start. )

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6888
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Trump presidency

Postby ucim » Sun Oct 07, 2018 2:59 pm UTC

sardia wrote:That's a bit of an exaggeration. What you'll see coming is what's already happening.
[...list...]

To me, that looks a lot like laying the groundwork for a dictatorship.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10548
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Sun Oct 07, 2018 3:30 pm UTC

Except dictators tend to be more environmentally friendly.

Slightly.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6598
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Thesh » Sun Oct 07, 2018 3:54 pm UTC

Remember, they've already passed a law allowing Sessions wide discretion in deciding whether something is a threat to national security that allows a wiretap, which they obviously consider the free press, BLM, and anti-fa to be a threat (but not white nationalists that are actually carrying out terrorist attacks). Republicans are already finding reasons to tap the phones of left-wing activists; Republican voters have already accepted that centrist media is part of a massive conspiracy against Trump, so they won't have a problem with those taps expanding to left-wing journalists and eventually anyone critical of Republicans.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10548
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Mon Oct 08, 2018 1:43 am UTC

So apparently Ford's ex-boyfriend is contradicting some of her claims

The claims he claims are wrong:
1) Ford stated she never prepped someone for a polygraph, which he says she did
2) Ford professed a fear of flying, which he states didn't present an issue in their vacations
3) Ford stated she needed two doors in her home, in spite of the 500 sq foot apartment in california having 1 door and this never having been an issue


So, it will be interesting if this account is verified or not.





Edit: Found this interesting little gem. Dr Seuss's take on the America First movement back in the 1930s/40s.
Link

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 2149
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Sableagle » Mon Oct 08, 2018 3:01 am UTC

Sableagle wrote:... being decent to Serbs born after '95 takes serious effort.
You can't blame the kids for that ...

CorruptUser wrote:Most major Islamic countries have committed a significant genocide or ethnic cleansing sometime in the past century, or even in just my lifetime. Many genocides/cleansings are still ongoing, and I'm not just talking about Syria. So should the Swiss reject all Muslims too?

Oh, I'm sorry.

I didn't realise wilfull misunderstanding day had come round again.

Had it, or was that just a language barrier thing?

See, to a European liberal democrat type, the idea that staying decent and polite can be difficult means that effort must be put into staying decent and polite, and the idea that you can't blame the kids for stuff means you mustn't blame the kids of stuff.

Does it mean something else where you are? "Staying decent and polite is takes effort so fuck it let's lynch them all," perhaps? "You can't blame the kids for that but what the fuck ever let's lynch them anyway," somehow? I'm not a native of your home state, so don't know quite how folks talk there.

You asked "why Serbians?" I provided some links so you could look into some of the possible reasons why. You asked for a summary. I gave one. You've put more effort into expressing that you don't get it than it would have taken to look at the headlines and video titles for yourself, and that would have been a lot faster than this.
Zohar wrote:You don't know what you're talking about. Please spare me your quote sniping and general obliviousness.

CorruptUser wrote:Just admit that you were wrong ... and your entire life, cyberspace and meatspace both, would be orders of magnitude more enjoyable for you and others around you.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10548
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Mon Oct 08, 2018 4:07 am UTC

Your links were to hour long videos of poor quality. You dont get to claim that one. As Grop said, your explanation sounded an awful lot like projection; the SWISS werent murdered by Milosevic, and your comment at the end about the holocaust survivor kids vs kids named Klaus Barbie doesnt make sense unless we were talking about the kids of Bosniaks vs Milosevic Jr. And to me, it seemed an awful lot like a justification rather than an explanation, so I snarked using the same logic can lead to a conclusion that you would not like.

Grop answered my question rather succinctly and without the argument we seem to be having.



Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: mathmannix and 24 guests