Turns out McCain has brain cancer. Surprising no one except his doctors apparently.Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
http://www.cnbc.com/amp/2017/07/19/s...fice-says.html
Turns out McCain has brain cancer. Surprising no one except his doctors apparently.
http://www.cnbc.com/amp/2017/07/19/s...fice-says.html
"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."
Agreed, fuck civil forfeiture.
Sad news, surprising no one but apparently pleasing some of his fellow Republicans:
https://www.google.se/amp/www.dailym...al-resign.html
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/ampht...-russia-probe/
I guess Comey's claim of a demand of personal loyalty would make him upset about a recusal like this.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
Someone should tell Trump that digging is just as bad for his health as any other form of exercise.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Steely, thanks for the thoughtful follow-up. I'm not going to fisk your post to death because I think we're nearing the point of diminishing returns. But I do think that we've identified our real point of departure:
I think our disagreement is not about what the currently available evidence indicates; we both think that the current evidence is not proof of collusion (though likely idiocy). Our disagreement is whether the court of public opinion should have a lower standard of proof during an investigation than the investigation itself. You believe that reasonable assumptions, inferences, and extrapolations from current evidence/behavior is enough to convict someone in public discourse, albeit not in a court of law. I believe that such serious charges should not be bandied about lightly, and judgment should be reserved until more evidence is available.
Your position is not unreasonable IMO; I disagree because of civil society issues but I don't deny that Trump certainly seems to have been acting quite fishily and we should be unstinting in our criticism of illegal behavior. On the second point of disagreement:
I think I've distilled your basic argument down to the above; apologies for simplifying in the interests of focusing the discussion.[...]
If the GOP was an actual, functional and responsible political party with legitimate policy goals with which I happen to disagree and an genuine interest in dialogue and compromise, then what you say has a lot of merit. But that hasn't really been true of the GOP since the Tea-Party, and is getting less true by the minute.
[...]
What it costs us is a situation where calling someone racist is seen as worse than being a racist, and where racists consequently feel empowered to be racist, knowing the won't face any consequences because everyone is too polite to call them what they are, and thus leaving the people who are the targets of racism, and who don't have the luxury of such high minded abstemiousness, high and dry to deal with their abuser on their own, without the support they deserve from the rest of us.
Basically? Fuck that.
You contest my arguments about the value of preserving civil discourse (and hence not rushing to judgment without additional evidence) by arguing twofold. First, you argue that civil discourse with the Republican Party is pointless since they will never compromise. Second, you argue that sometimes it's important to personalize a critique because we shouldn't make personal attacks taboo.
On the first issue, I agree that the direction of the GOP as a party of opposition during the Obama presidency has not been encouraging, often catering to its supporters' basest instincts without regard for the long term wisdom of such an approach. And I think that they are having a very difficult time shedding that legacy now that they are running the government. Yet to dismiss them entirely because of these challenges is both wrong and counterproductive. It's wrong because they do have legitimate policies and priorities, and they are willing to compromise when push comes to shove. This happens a lot more on the state and local level, but even on the federal stage there are plenty of quiet compromises that have happened during the Obama years. But let's imagine you're right and the GOP has thrown out the ideas of dialogue, compromise, and responsibility. It's still counterproductive to adopt a policy of blanket 'resistance' that has been championed by some Democrats. This causes the Democrats to face the same problems as the GOP did - a slide to radicalism and populism to appease a fired-up base. This isn't healthy, especially because it creates a gulf in American politics that will be incredibly challenging to bridge. Just because the GOP did it (and does it, currently) doesn't mean that the Dems should as well. They want to present themselves as the responsible party? Okay, then they should act like it.
I mentioned earlier that one of the things I was most concerned about the current government was exercising the nuclear option for Senate SCOTUS confirmations (and now suggestions to do away with supermajority rules altogether). The blame does not rest solely with Republicans for this one (Dems chipped away at it earlier and did the usual reconciliation wheezes to avoid the 60 vote threshold), but the latest moves - and rhetoric - are the nail in the coffin. The reason I find it so troubling is because while the House might be full of the rabble, the Senate is supposed to be a more deliberative - and civil - body. They are insulated from constant campaigning by staggered 6 years terms, they typically have to form some sort of bipartisan compromise to avoid filibuster, etc. Changing the character of the Senate is thus deeply concerning to me.
We have faced unbridgeable political gulfs in the country before. Our greatest political crisis resulted in a ruinous, costly war, the reverberations of which continue to echo in our society today. It's entirely possible that the Civil War was necessary to resolve the fundamental tension that had existed in the US since its founding. But I would prefer to avoid a repeat if at all possible. And do you know what's interesting? The Civil War, despite the blood and horror, was surprisingly, well, civil. Lincoln was careful not to be triumphalist during the latter stages of the war as the Union slowly dismantled the Confederacy. The leaders on both sides, while firm political enemies, did not resort to the kind of nastiness that imbues our political discourse today. And that was about an issue that was far less nuanced than our political debates today.
It shouldn't be taboo to call a white supremacist a white supremacist, or a fascist a fascist, or an antisemite an antisemite (I want to be clear I'm not conflating any of these three or arguing they are similar in scope). But we should use those labels with caution and care; to overuse them not only weakens their weight but also poisons public discourse. It's a mild form of the reductio ad hitlerum; no useful discourse can proceed after you've called someone a Nazi. It's even more challenging when you dismiss an entire political grouping on that basis.
Steely, I've really appreciated this discussion. I think it helped me articulate my thinking on an issue of great importance, and I hope you've also gained something from it. I'm happy to read your response, but I suspect that afterwards we will have mined this seam out. Thanks!
A side note on epistemology:
I don't actually work in pharma development directly; I work more in developing materials systems for both pharma and medical device applications. Regardless, you're right that empirical data cannot intentionally deceive. Yet there's still plenty of confusion, often in the form of hidden variables in our experimental system. The more complex the system (especially for something as ridiculously complex as the human body), the harder it is to believe the data you've collected; one must always be aware of the possibility - no, the certainty - that the data are representing much more complex phenomenon than what you were trying to isolate for study. And that's even before we talk about fuzzy measurement issues or systematic bias in data. My point is that there's a huge amount of uncertainty in the kind of work I do, which is why I demand such a high standard of proof (that and the fact that if I screw up then it can affect the lives of millions down the line); I do not see that as fundamentally different from the uncertainties faced by a political/criminal investigation. In both cases, there's a lot of work needed to find the truth, and in both cases prematurely choosing an outcome can result in catastrophic consequences for society.A rational approach when you're dealing with the behaviour of pharmaceuticals (that is what you do, right?), but not when you're dealing with human beings. Drugs don't make an active effort to deceive you, or conceal information, or make unwarranted assumptions in the things they tell you, or simply refuse to co-operate. Or any of the other frankly weird things people are likely to do.
"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)
It was a bit humorous watching the trump subreddits go through another purge with people celebrating that McCain has cancer and banning those who were saying that such attitudes are crossing a line. Its like they compete on who can be the scummiest of the scum.
-------------------
Trump warns Mueller against looking into his family finances apart from Russia investigation
"look officer, I didn't murder anyone, but don't go looking in my freezer"
"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."
Mueller got Trump's message: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...s-transactions
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
So, that leaves Trump with 2 moves? Act on his "red line" and continue to obstruct, or do nothing and continue to look weak.
"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."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...7e5_story.html
Not looking good for the Trump team.
Edit: what a truly loathsome man.
Twitter Link
Last edited by Loki; 07-21-2017 at 03:48 AM.
Hope is the denial of reality
President Trump has asked his advisers about his power to pardon aides, family members and even himself in connection with the Russia probe, according to a person familiar with the effort.
WTF. 6 months in and he is trying to find a way to pardon himself?
"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."
Can we just promise him safe haven in Saudi Arabia with all of his riches if he leaves now? Maybe Switzerland if he promises to take Gingrich.
Hope is the denial of reality
Suffice to say this is fairly unprecedented. I hope Mueller, his team and their families are being protected from hackers, kidnappers, assassins etc.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Another nail for the Sean Spicer is leaving coffin.
http://www.fox13news.com/news/269379622-story
Looks official: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/21/u...imes&smtyp=cur
First piece of backbone the guy has displayed in 6 months.
"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."
Has there ever before been such a realistic prospect of impeachment for an electoral issue before? Is there any precedence for this?
No, there is not precedence. And while he will have the ability to pardon aids, family, etc, pardoning himself isn't really an option. Even if he actually has the power to do it, it does absolutely nothing against impeachment. And as I think I explained briefly a while ago, you can't really manage a successful prosecution based on material one was already convicted of in impeachment proceedings either.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...attorneys.html
Interesting point about state attorney generals going after the Trump clan.
Hope is the denial of reality
If he pardons people (and they accept), don't the 5th amendment protections disappear? Thats a can of worms he might be dumb enough to open.
Theres no doubt with the current climate that Pence is scummy enough to pardon Trump, but that wont save him.
"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."
They'd still be able to plead the 5th in state trials.
Edit: And a Spicer story:
Twitter Link
Last edited by Loki; 07-22-2017 at 12:52 AM.
Hope is the denial of reality
Agreed. (Well, they're both loathsome, but Gingrich is especially smarmy.)
So where the hell are the Republicans who should be denouncing the Trump apologists, including his legal team making bogus arguments about 'conflicts of interest' from Mueller's investigators? Besides the fact that making political donations is part of Freeee Speech and perfectly legal....has Trump's own team forgotten that HE has given millions to Democrats?
I can't decide which is worse -- the hypocrisy from Republicans who relished Clinton's impeachment (after an investigation that started with White Water and ended in perjury about a blow job), or their deafening silence about Trump's business/financial entanglements that always leads back to Russian oligarchs (and possibly impeachable offenses), or the way Trump's administration keeps distracting and deflecting our attention from issues like healthcare and infrastructure (where he's failing).
No. Accepting a federal pardon cannot be taken as an admission of guilt in another jurisdiction.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Then wtf is Trump's legal team doing?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/ampht...e83_story.html
Well well well
well well well
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
Twitter Link
1-There was no collusion with Russia, it's all Fake News.
2-Don Jr. met with Russians, but it was about adoptions.
3-It was a set up by Hillary and Obama.
4-Collusion is a good thing.
5-I'm President and I pardon myself!
This is the anything is better than a Dem that lewk supports. This country has a lot of lewks in it. This country is fucked.
Best hope right now is that Trump's hand is forced and that gives the dems a fighting chance to take congress in 2018.
"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.npr.org/2017/07/20/538363...-appeals-court
Lewk should be happy.
Hope is the denial of reality
I'm impressed by Trump-Pence's attempt to rally their forces--and draw attention away from the Russia-scandal--with Trump's latest outrage-inducing tweets about transgender people in the military.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/28/u...use-trump.html
That didn't take long.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonal...6%2Fframe.html
There really is a hypothetical Trump tweet for everything.
"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://thehill.com/homenews/administ...rm-isnt-passed
This was never about healthcare. It's always been about his ego. What the fuck.
"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."
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote