Of course it's the same. Just observing that you're setting the bar for discussion of this topic at a point so high that it will never be reached by his victims, because he can pressure them into settling without admitting fault and without being found guilty by a court.Originally Posted by RandBlade
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
No one here has yet claimed O'reilly was guilty. The story was about the pussy grabber instinctively siding with the scumbag he watches before he starts twitter ranting. For a person like Trump to do this on sexual harassment month is just another example of a despicable person being despicable. When you yourself are an admitted sexual harasser common sense would suggest not to make comments about others in the same boat.
But as Aimless pointed out, Oreilly is only a few steps below god for Trump and as Fuzzy pointed out Trump is to stupid to see how his previous behavior was wrong.
Last edited by Ominous Gamer; 04-06-2017 at 11:52 PM.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
http://www.businessinsider.com/trump...aign=buffer-bi
I have long suspected that Trump was from a different timeline but now I'm beginning to think he may be ON another timeline.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Twitter Link
A reminder that stupidity in politics predates Trump. As I recall, several people here supported this man.
Hope is the denial of reality
In civil proceedings, the proof of a claim follows a "preponderance of evidence" standard. But that has absolutely nothing to do with innocence or guilt. Those aren't standards which make any sense in civil court, which is about dividing measures of responsibility into portions and lining them up with associated costs.
It is not possible to be civilly guilty of sexual harassment. Civil law is about establishing whether damages were suffered and by which parties, in what amounts, and in what fashion those costs get paid for. If, for instance, you're looking at having to pay damages as a proxy for guilty (and you shouldn't, because it doesn't work that way) then if O'Reilly paid those damages it would not indicate in the slightest whether he himself had committed the sexual harassment because a court may merely have determined he was the best person to have prevented it, or that his insurer is the one in the best position to process the claim. Civil law is about whether harm was suffered (remember that guilt is a concept based on the perpetrator, mens rea and actus rea, while harm is a concept based on the plaintiff, who could even BE the perpetrator), and how best the harm can be remedied.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Balance of probabilities is how we in the UK say preponderance of evidence. It means to my knowledge the exact same thing as your term.
Trump might have just started a war.
Twitter Link
Hope is the denial of reality
But we're not primarily in dispute over the evidentiary standard. As I said, it has nothing to do with innocence or guilt. We're in dispute over "innocent until proven guilty" in civil disputes, which is something else entirely
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Senate goes nuclear - this alone makes Trump election worth it. Can breathe a huge sigh of relief the court didn't get Garland and tipped liberal.
Perhaps the reason for Bannon's demotion?
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
This is a good thing no? Punishing those who use chemical weapons rather than using threatening words but doing nothing.
Am curious what the fallout will be.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
Pretty sure this war has been going on for years and that Obama declared the use of chemical weapons a red line too
It is a relief to see the US stand up for long standing US values now and not bow down and tolerate Russia's ally doing whatever they please.
Loki, although often prone to hyperbole about Trump, is probably right on this one. The US has by and large refrained from direct strikes against Syrian regime forces for obvious reasons - the biggest one starting with the letter R and sounding like 'Prussia'. If - and this is a big if - Russian forces were not harmed, and if this is a one-off strike just to send a signal, they can probably get away with it. But if this morphs into a sustained campaign to degrade regime forces' ability to launch further chemical attacks against civilians, it will be increasingly difficult to avoid a substantial US military commitment and potential confrontations with Russia. It is not something to be entered into lightly.
My broader critique is that it's not at all obvious to me that Syria has suddenly crossed a red line. They have probably continued to carry out small scale chemical attacks against civilians even after claiming to have destroyed most of their stockpiles under an agreement with the US a few years back. They certainly continue a merciless campaign against their own people which shows no compunction about killing civilians, clearly violating the principle of distinction. This particular attack, while certainly rather visible and apparently of larger scale than most recent attacks, is not really a change in the regime's SOP. I am less than impressed with Trump's sudden about-face. He thought Assad was A-okay until now? Really? At least the Obama administration was consistent in their critique and call for his ouster, even though they refrained from getting too involved.
I am also curious how effective the strike was. We just blew somewhere on the order of $50 million+ on attacking that airfield, and I wonder if standoff munitions would be good enough to seriously inconvenience them. Sure, they probably took out some aircraft and damaged the runways a bit, but I wonder if they actually did all that much. It seems more likely that this is a high profile (and expensive) signal without any hope of really limiting future chemical attacks.
"When I meet God, I am going to ask him two questions: Why relativity? And why turbulence? I really believe he will have an answer for the first." - Werner Heisenberg (maybe)
Sorry for the double post, but on further thought there's a different concern that should be considered. In the same week that we've seen stepped-up rhetoric (and now strikes) about Syria, there has also been a hardening of US rhetoric on North Korea. It seems pretty clear both based on recent US/SK wargaming as well as outside analysis that the only viable military option to deal with NK nukes and conventional ballistic missiles is a massive decapitation strike aimed at destroying NK offensive capabilities and leadership as quickly as possible. It seems questionable whether such a strike would be fully effective (certainly some of the more portable Scud-type missiles would survive such a strike), but it would probably work better than any other military plan. Do we think that the administration will find this a viable path forward in dealing with the high probability of a NK ICBM with a nuclear warhead before the end of the administration?
While I'm not fan of NK, I think this would be a terrible idea absent clear indications that NK was thinking about an attack, but I am less convinced that the Trump administration has the wisdom to countenance a modest NK nuclear capability. Reading too much into their stance on NK based on their actions in Syria is obviously a risk, but it doesn't seem like an unwarranted concern.
"When I meet God, I am going to ask him two questions: Why relativity? And why turbulence? I really believe he will have an answer for the first." - Werner Heisenberg (maybe)
I think there's an element of sending a message to NK here.
I think Trump would get much more pushback from his advisers as well as from other Republicans when it comes to such a strike on NK. I hope, rather.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
I think Trump has been pushed by his advisors like Gen. McMaster into making this long overdue air strike. I'd far rather McMaster be the one giving the advise than Bannon.
I wonder. I suspect most military planners have little interest in getting further involved in the mess that is Syria. I think it's more likely that Trump asked for some options and they came up with them, but I question whether Mcmaster or the Joint Chiefs were really in favor of risking a confrontation with Russia over a strike with only political significance.
"When I meet God, I am going to ask him two questions: Why relativity? And why turbulence? I really believe he will have an answer for the first." - Werner Heisenberg (maybe)
I suspect this was the proposed option that they were most in favour of. Sends a short, sharp and clear message without further action being necessary or causing a major entanglement/escalation.
The BBC coverage has formerly high ranking Americans speaking very positively about the action. While not military, James Jeffrey (former ambassador to Iraq) describes it as "way overdue" while Jack Keane former vice chief of the US Army is quoted as suggesting the US could 'destroy Assad air power "in one night"' if there is further chemical weapon attacks.
Obama was an abject failure for setting a red line and doing nothing when it was crossed. We can thank Trump for at least overturning that disastrous mistake.
Incidentally I'm appalled by Loki's seeming consternation at this action. For someone who proclaims to be a fan of "international law" the banning of the use of chemical weapons has been an international "red line" and a major part of international law and the law of war for a hundred years. There have been breaches from time to time but it has been one most successful international law in one of the most complex of areas.
I don't understand how anyone who has the slightest respect for international law can propose that the use of chemical weapons can be ignored or tolerated.
That's like being upset when someone says that crimes should be punished through the justice system rather than by individual vigilantes or lynch-mobs.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Actions like this are the equivalent of the justice system though.
Sure, if you believe the US is police, prosecution, judge, jury and executioner. Like much of the world, I don't share that view, and, even if I did, this investigation would seem insufficient.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
I'm a bit leery of putting words into Loki's mouth, but it is entirely possible to believe that international law should be followed - and that there should be consequences for failing to follow international law - without thinking a specific action in retaliation for said violation is appropriate or wise. The risk of a confrontation with Russia may indeed be too great to justify such a move.
I am not someone who is opposed to US intervention - unilateral or not - to enforce international norms like the Genocide Convention, WMD use/profileration, etc. I think it is sometimes necessary, especially given some of the bad actors on the UNSC and the current lack of rapid accountability possible through using legal measures like the ICC. I think US diplomatic, economic, and military power can and should be brought to bear when needed. But there should also be prudence in its application; sometimes, no matter how bad the current situation, our intervention can only make things worse. I am not convinced that is the case here, but I am at least receptive to arguments to that effect.
http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the...make-bad-20058I suspect this was the proposed option that they were most in favour of. Sends a short, sharp and clear message without further action being necessary or causing a major entanglement/escalation.
The BBC coverage has formerly high ranking Americans speaking very positively about the action. While not military, James Jeffrey (former ambassador to Iraq) describes it as "way overdue" while Jack Keane former vice chief of the US Army is quoted as suggesting the US could 'destroy Assad air power "in one night"' if there is further chemical weapon attacks.
Obama was an abject failure for setting a red line and doing nothing when it was crossed. We can thank Trump for at least overturning that disastrous mistake.
https://warontherocks.com/2017/04/tr...-and-the-ugly/
https://warisboring.com/trump-pummel...clinton-esque/
Many more where these came from. Lots of military types are not comfortable with this approach. I have no doubt that there are those who think this is a prudent action (I'm on the fence on this one) but it is not an obviously good plan - if we could call it a plan. Notably the Obama attempt years ago fell apart because it became clear he didn't really have Congressional or allied support. Trump appears to have gone ahead without consulting either.
"When I meet God, I am going to ask him two questions: Why relativity? And why turbulence? I really believe he will have an answer for the first." - Werner Heisenberg (maybe)
"much of the world"?
By my reckoning we have had in response and sorry there's a British bias to my knowledge:
In favour of the action: The UK, France, Germany, Japan, Australia, Italy, Poland. The European Union. NATO.
Twitter Link
Against the action: Putin, Iran, Jeremy Corbyn, Nigel Farage, Marine Le Pen.
Ambivalent: China
Watching the America First Trump supporters trying to wrap their head around on how to support this has been god damn popcorn worthy. Yesterday it was all false flags and shit, to the point that even Lewk tried that shit on these boards. The backwater subreddits are still infighting over it.Paranoia about paid shills coming from both sides of the argument. Even /r/the_donald/ are posting Trump's own tweets against action in Syria.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
I'm amazed by how much people are reading into a very straightforward statement made a minute after news of the attack.
Hope is the denial of reality
This seems like a big deal/ worrisome. As for Congress, bombing Syria is an act of war, isn't it? Yeah, we've been bombing ISIS for a while, but there isn't an authorization for the use of force against the Syrian government, right? Is the authorization from way back, used to invade Iraq, being cited as covering this action? That's what's being used for the bombing of ISIS, right?
What about having consulted no allies? Is that a big deal here?
The short time and no discussion with anyone between gas attack and bombing, along with the sudden apparent reversal of opinion about Assad, gives a holy shit component to this whole thing. Extrapolated: holy shit, what else might this guy do without consultation and much consideration? Bomb NK or Iran?
One has to wonder how this is factoring into the discussions with the Chinese about NK, which presumably are going on right this minute. You have to think the Chinese are wondering, at least a little, holy shit, would this guy - with no discussion/ consultation and little warning - start bombing NK for dropping an ICBM 200 miles off the coast of California? I wonder if that helps or hurts that discussion?
I have to wonder how Putin's machinations are changing.
The Rules
Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)
Regarding Congressional approval, my concern is more limited; Congress has in general abdicated their responsibilities in this arena and the President certainly has some leeway on limited strikes. If he wanted to do a larger or longer incursion, though, he should probably get approval.
Consulting allies seems like a better idea, though, especially given the complex geopolitical situation in Syria and the need to have major NATO/etc. allies on board. It looks like most people got on board after the attacks, but it's not clear what the strategy is from now and whether the US will have allied support on things.
"When I meet God, I am going to ask him two questions: Why relativity? And why turbulence? I really believe he will have an answer for the first." - Werner Heisenberg (maybe)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote