EPTOn July 07 2016 02:58 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
I think the bold underlined attack is pretty funny coming from you
I think the bold underlined attack is pretty funny coming from you
Her answer is great for once.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 4171
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
Her answer is great for once. | ||
|
GGTeMpLaR
United States7226 Posts
On July 07 2016 03:14 kapibara-san wrote: yeah, that's a pretty intellectually questionable misdirection to try to generalize a specific interation of a flaw of a specific system that's supposed to be held to a decent standard to literally everyone of course everyone has that flaw; of course everyone needs to work on their flaws you just felt like repeating a talking point we're all probably aware of you're doing the same thing as i talked about earlier, where one points at the dumb people and their flaws rather than addressing the gems hiding amongst the shit there will always be dumb people to point at; it's not a good turn of conversation to point out they still exist it's superioritycomplex 101 to point out the obvious flaws of echo chambers and circlejerking; it only puts you one level above them. in fact, it's already become a circlejerk to complain about echo chambers and circlejerking. to actually contribute something, you need to suggest something realistic, not a shout your identification of general flaw at a group of people who probably won't listen, especially given the way you put it, because the way you put it is a monument to your ego, not a bonafide attempt at improving things. i'm superioritycomplex 102, sit down and welcome to class. This is what you've been doing the past 3 pages I don't get what your point is. On July 07 2016 03:39 Plansix wrote: Leave moderation to the mods and stop calling out posts that don’t live up to your standards and we will all be fine. Gotta bookmark this for the next time you hypocritically do the exact opposite of what you're advocating in this post as you've done multiple times. | ||
|
kapibara-san
Japan415 Posts
i'm always open to posts critiquing my posts' substance or tone with some level of detail... but the following counterexamples do not qualify as such: On July 07 2016 03:39 Plansix wrote: Leave moderation to the mods and stop calling out posts that don’t live up to your standards and we will all be fine. On July 07 2016 03:34 Plansix wrote: Maybe do less of that. Your ongoing commentary on peoples posting isn’t that interesting. Most of the people in this thread have been posting here for months or years, so its not really necessary either. this second sentence is especially perplexing. "Most of the people in this thread have been posting here for months or years, so its not really necessary either." none of this thread is necessary. seniority shouldn't matter, substance should. posting in a thread for months or years does not guarantee any level of self-awareness, which is what i am ultimately trying to foster. On July 07 2016 03:30 OuchyDathurts wrote: Notice how no one has replied to any of your posts yet? Maybe your posts aren't as intellectual as you think they are. On July 07 2016 04:04 GGTeMpLaR wrote: This is what you've been doing the past 3 pages I don't get what your point is. my point is you were detracting from the conversation at hand regarding police officers, and even if you weren't, you were making an unoriginal point that's been done a million times over that has very little potential of generating productive conversation. if you disagree, please tell me why. if you agree, maybe you should stop yourself the next time you decide posting about the problem of echo chambers and radicalization while offering nothing new and providing no interesting angles of discussion is a good idea. my whole point is that if people managed to stay away from cliches that tend to lead nowhere, this thread would have a lot more high quality discussion. i know i'm not the curator of this thread, and i have no authority; it's just an opinion that i hope people would agree with, or at least give input on. i just don't see why meta-discussion should be shamed... and if you want to shame it, at least offer some sort of explanation which part you take an issue with. is that i'm hurting feelings and increasing feelings of hostility? i feel like that happens all the time here for much less. is it that i'm displaying too large of an ego? i'm sorry, but i don't think that's a bannable or actionable offense in itself... and i don't consider that an issue per se. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States44257 Posts
On July 06 2016 22:14 Plansix wrote: Fair warning to folks, that Alton Sterling video is incredibly disturbing and making the rounds on the internet. I am sure some folks here won’t be bothered but if you think it might bother, I would skip it. Yup. It's absolutely sickening and grotesque. A fucking execution. | ||
|
GGTeMpLaR
United States7226 Posts
Presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump will report raising more than $50 million in June, his first month of aggressive fundraising, according to Republican Party sources. The sum, raised between the campaign and the larger Trump Victory effort with the Republican National Committee, is more than 16 times what he raised in May—the month in which he secured the nomination. The sum, while a drastic improvement from his meager haul the month prior, pales in comparison to what then-presumptive Republican nominee Mitt Romney and the RNC brought in four years ago. The Romney Victory effort raised $106.1 million in June 2012. While initially boasting he was self-funding his campaign, Trump has since shifted to a more traditional model of soliciting large dollar checks at campaign fundraisers and small-dollar donations online. Particularly since the departure of former campaign manager Corey Lewandowski, the campaign has stepped up its fundraising efforts, with Trump more personally involved in the solicitations and the digital effort unleashed to rake in money from Trump supporters. In a statement, Trump’s campaign said $26 million went to the campaign, with the more than $25 million balance going to the RNC and other Republican groups. (The latter figure includes some money raised at his inaugural fundraisers at the end of May.) The campaign claims more than 400,000 supporters, with 94% donating under the $200 threshold required for individual disclosure. Trump loaned his campaign at least $46 million through the end of May, according to Federal Election Commission filings. On June 23, his campaign released a statement that Trump has terminated the loan “in excess of $50 million dollars.” The Trump campaign said the candidate donated another $3.8 million to his campaign in June, bringing his total to $55 million. Trump has yet to run a general election ad, and is leaving the work of building a ground effort to the RNC, which is the largest beneficiary of the money jointly raised through the victory effort. Hillary Clinton, meanwhile, has run tens-of-millions of dollars in television spots in battleground states and has hundreds of field staffers on the ground. “We just started our fundraising efforts in the last week of May and we are extremely pleased with the broad-based support in the last five weeks for the Trump Campaign and Trump Victory,” Steven Mnuchin, Trump’s finance chairman, in a statement. Source | ||
|
farvacola
United States18825 Posts
 | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11500 Posts
On July 07 2016 04:12 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Yup. It's absolutely sickening and grotesque. A fucking execution. And in the end, it will turn out that no one is guilty of anything. At most someone is going to be discharged from the police force. Like every single time. Because apparently people just randomly die in police custody all the time, and police are incapable of doing anything wrong. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21655 Posts
On July 07 2016 04:23 farvacola wrote: Let's keep in mind that while the Trump campaign has "reported" that Trump would forgive his personal campaign loans of almost 50 million, the FEC has received no filing of such an action which is why, way back when I commented on this I specifically mentioned I would believe it after the campaign ended. its easy to say 1 thing and do another 6 months later. | ||
|
Naracs_Duc
746 Posts
On July 07 2016 03:21 Gorsameth wrote: The vast majority of reasonable people do not work in a public role model role like the police tho. The entire justice system works on the basis public trust. That trust has to be earned and maintained. The continued closing of ranks in the face of overwhelming evidence has eroded that trust and lead to the police hate we see today. When a suspect dies in police custody someone has fucked up. When a suspect gets strangled to death by police using an illegal choke hold someone fucked up. When a young child with a bb-gun is gunned down within 2 seconds of an officer arriving on the scene someone fucked up. When a cuffed man gets executed like a bad gangster movie someone fucked up. The "closing of ranks" you point to is a Union practice, not specifically a police practice. Lots of unionized groups practice it as the pay/benefits of one affects the pay/benefits of all. (As opposed to a privatized system where one person getting punished often enough is an opportunity for someone else to get ahead) Not that unions are bad, but to simplify the police problem as cops trust each other and lean on each other too much is just dishonest. Could the problem be the police? Yes. Could the problem be societal and the police are simply one of them many ways those societal issues erupts violently? (aka BLM movement) Research is needed to be certain what the cause is--but something needs fixing, I don't care how its fixed. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On July 07 2016 04:41 Gorsameth wrote: which is why, way back when I commented on this I specifically mentioned I would believe it after the campaign ended. its easy to say 1 thing and do another 6 months later. Normally I would say that it is too short sighted to release inflated claims of how much they raised when they have to report spending and fund raising to the FEC. But when it comes Trumps campaign, all bets are off. | ||
|
kapibara-san
Japan415 Posts
On July 07 2016 03:39 Plansix wrote: Leave moderation to the mods and stop calling out posts that don’t live up to your standards and we will all be fine. On July 07 2016 03:39 Plansix wrote: Leave moderation to the mods and stop calling out posts that don’t live up to your standards and we will all be fine. check out this recursive conversation between plansix and himself | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23209 Posts
On July 07 2016 03:40 kapibara-san wrote: it's not about literally moderating and punishing them for low effort its calling them out for what i consider bad intellectual habits and giving them a chance to defend the merit of their posts why is it taken for granted that every (non-personal attack non-meme) post is sacred and the act of posting it is, at the least, unassailable? by the original definition of meme, the posts i called out were certainly overused memes with very little room for discussion, especially given the fact that they made no attempts to foster discussion. i feel compelled to emphasize that it's not backseat modding because i'm attempting to appeal to the posters' free will, not saying that what they're posting should be inherently disallowed. if they didnt express those thoughts in the first place, i wouldn't have been able to express my thoughts that their habitual expression of those thoughts (sans attempt at getting something new out of bringing it up) is itself an issue. EDIT: also have to point out the irony of you attempting to moderate my posting as a not-mod i'm bringing up actual points about the issues of cliche complaints in political discussions that tend to lead nowhere and 1. OuchyDatHurts and 2. Plansix make literally 0 attempt at addressing the content and 1. ODH personally insults me with a one-liner telling me i'm not intellectual and 2. P6 attempts to shame me by telling me my posts arent interesting, as if he's the arbiter of interesting, and tells me to stop pointing out flaws in other peoples posts as if that isn't essentially the point of this thread, if not at least a staple Seems like you're starting to understand what this is. Now you know why I engage the way I typically do. TL seems to be making a little progress on this, less people want to defend the police on this, and very few are ignoring that the "investigation" being performed by the department responsible is ludicrous. Now maybe if people take a look at the police union contracts they may understand why this absurdity is still the case. All police aren't bad, but they have collectively bargained to protect criminals among themselves and that should be something everyone of all political stripes pushed to change years ago. There are no excuses other than you don't care, or you like it the way it is, both unacceptable and grotesque. For those complaining about some of the poor arguments as an excuse to ignore the problem, kapi was kind. We've tried everything you ignorant folks are suggesting for decades or centuries, just because you're just learning about the struggle (through bigoted you tube videos usually) doesn't mean we are. Get out of your bubble and learn something, when idiots say "if black people just" I can't help but twitch at the shear ignorance only surpassed by the pride and entitlement that comes with it. Here's what we were saying 50 damn years ago. We can go back to Fredrick Douglass, or we can go even further back where you probably won't even recognize their names because they aren't a part of the history you were taught. Point is too many white people didn't listen then, didn't listen through the 70's and 80's when we said the abuse was still constant, ignored it in the 90's when Rodney King was beaten on camera, ignored it through the first decade of the 21st century and continue to complain that they are tired of hearing their complaints, but refuse to take even the most basic steps to prevent what they are complaining about because they can find a case that's not the best representation of the argument and use it to ignore the rest like a small child. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21655 Posts
On July 07 2016 04:46 Naracs_Duc wrote: The "closing of ranks" you point to is a Union practice, not specifically a police practice. Lots of unionized groups practice it as the pay/benefits of one affects the pay/benefits of all. (As opposed to a privatized system where one person getting punished often enough is an opportunity for someone else to get ahead) Not that unions are bad, but to simplify the police problem as cops trust each other and lean on each other too much is just dishonest. Could the problem be the police? Yes. Could the problem be societal and the police are simply one of them many ways those societal issues erupts violently? (aka BLM movement) Research is needed to be certain what the cause is--but something needs fixing, I don't care how its fixed. I did not mean it as cops leaning and trusting each-other to much. It is the practice of police (and indeed other professions) to defend each other regardless of the crime or evidence. And Unions? It comes back to how shit unions are in America. Over here a police union will certainly strive hard to keep themselves clean because they know the value of public trust in them to be able to perform their function. Police need people to trust and respect them to do their job effectively. Defending scum in your own ranks does the exact opposite of that. | ||
|
kapibara-san
Japan415 Posts
i think it's a natural effect of a lot of diversity and sense that one's only been assisted in life by one's family and coworkers, with some sort of sense that most people are not on one's side you can see this effect exaggerated in mainland chinese culture, where everything's all about connections, in-group loyalty, "fuck you got mine," total distrust of strangers, total disregard for the environment and greater world in general conversely, in japan, people like to help each other, everyone tries to keep the place clean... compassion still isn't infinite and capable of conquering all, as there are problems with homeless people and poverty, so obviously it's not a socialist utopia, but even if you hear of the college entrance exam system and early salaryman corporate life being especially brutal, there's a sense of camaraderie and mutual understanding between most people in most analogous life situations in general. policemen and security people can be dumb in the sense of following rules and unspoken assumptions too strictly, but overall, people fundamentally want to help people more. people don't want to punish criminal offenders as much, they generally want to rehabilitate them unless they appear psychopathic and/or unrepentant. judges have a lot of discretion to reduce sentences or customize them to programs of rehabilitation, and they seem to consider level of remorse highly. i think that this kind of mutual trust between the general populace due to the relatively homogeneity and cultural cohesiveness. it's kind of striking how when i go to, for example, an american news article about a man shooting his son at a shooting range for the fault of bad gun etiquette, the comments are filled mostly with schadenfreude over sympathy. there's no sense that other american citizens are worth empathizing with unless they share familial, political, religious, school, or industry affiliation. there's a big sense that there's lots of dumb people to be made fun of and shamed. my wife who's working for a japanese law firm right now notes it as pretty noncompetitive and relaxed compared to american law firms; many contracts are drawn up rather casually and companies that work each other rarely try to screw each other. there was one interesting anecdote where a japanese importer screwed over by an american supplier who breached their own contract by providing defective goods without proper QA were way too polite for american culture in their first draft of their complaint/statement in the lawsuit, essentially politely asking for what they feel would be fair reparations rather than going for the throat and getting maximum damages. anyway my point is americans don't got enough love for each other. still better than china tho and i realize i'm fetishizing japan to an extent in this depiction, and there are plenty of hateful nationalists and there's plenty of cultural infighting... but the legal and corporate cultures especially still reflect a greater desire for cooperation and harmony over dog-eat-dog win win win overall. sometimes, that's not even a good thing... japanese businessmen are generally noted for being inefficient and ineffectual and are pressured to spend lots of time keeping up appearances even if they don't have much work (reminds me of the stereotype of american government workers, but that's another issue). and yea there's lots of good, empathetic, american people who are willing to help strangers as well... just seemingly not nearly enough of them in the criminal justice system in general. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23209 Posts
Former Fox News host Gretchen Carlson is suing the network's CEO and chairman Roger Ailes, alleging a pervasive practice of sexual harassment. Carlson, 50, was removed from her 2 p.m. newscast "The Real Story" in late June. The lawsuit says she was terminated for "refusing Ailes' sexual advances." Carlson's attorney Nancy Erika Smith, of the firm Smith Mullin, told CNNMoney Wednesday that Ailes' harassment was "very consistent and very pervasive." Representatives for Ailes did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Smith emphasized that Carlson is only suing Ailes, not the network. Still, the lawsuit is a bombshell that could have serious consequences for Fox. In the tight-knit, ultra-competitive television business, there was immediate speculation about whether other women at Fox would come forward to back up Carlson's claims. Ailes, now 76, founded Fox News in 1996 and has run the network with an iron fist ever since, with employees famously loyal to him. He signed another multi-year contract last year. Carlson's lawsuit alleges that Ailes repeatedly "injected sexual and/or sexist comments" into conversations; made "sexual advances by various means;" and said to her last September, "I think you and I should have had a sexual relationship a long time ago and then you'd be good and better and I'd be good and better." The suit says Carlson requested the September meeting because she was seeking to "bring to an end the retaliatory and discriminatory treatment she had endured." Instead, the suit alleges, the "retaliation" continued through June, when her contract was not renewed. The eight-page lawsuit, filed with the Superior Court of New Jersey on Wednesday, alleges that Ailes violated the New York City Human Rights Law. Asked whether Carlson has any recordings or other evidence, Smith said, "We are very confident in our evidence. We have very powerful evidence. But we don't want to discuss what the evidence is outside of the courtroom." Source | ||
|
GGTeMpLaR
United States7226 Posts
The Green Party’s likely presidential nominee said federal officials should prosecute Hillary Clinton for mishandling classified information and endangering national security. In a Wednesday statement, Jill Stein echoed Republican criticism of the Obama administration, saying that the FBI “is giving Clinton a pass” by declining to recommend criminal charges related to her use of a private email system while serving as secretary of State. “All the elements necessary to prove a felony violation were found by the FBI investigation,” Stein said in a statement. “Her staff has said Secretary Clinton stated she used her private email system because she did not want her personal emails to become accessible under [Freedom of Information] laws,” she added. “This is damning on two counts — that she intended to disregard the protection of security information, and that she had personal business to conceal.” FBI Director James Comey on Tuesday said the investigation found little evidence to suggest Clinton and her aides intended to mishandle sensitive information, though they did appear to be “extremely careless.” Still, that did not meet the legal standard of “gross negligence,” Comey said. Stein disagreed and said that details about the setup revealed by the FBI “undermined the defenses Clinton put forward." Aides to Clinton have not claimed she was aiming to thwart the Freedom of Information Act in particular, though in emails she said she didn’t “want any risk of the personal [messages] being accessible.” Insisting that Clinton be prosecuted for mishandling classified information is an unexpected position for Stein, who, like Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson, has hoped to take advantage of the high public disapproval of both Clinton and presumptive GOP nominee Donald Trump. Stein has made a blatant appeal to supporters of Clinton’s primary opponents Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). But Sanders has repeatedly refused to attack Clinton over the email issue, memorably shutting the conversation down in October, saying voters were "sick and tired of hearing about your damn emails.” Stein on Wednesday also alluded to potential conflicts of interest during Clinton’s time in office, such as the relationship between her official duties as the nation’s top diplomat and benefactors of her family foundation. “The blurring of the lines between Clinton family private business and national security matters in the secretary of State office underscores evidence on many other fronts that Hillary Clinton is serving the 1 percent, not we the people,” Stein said. “The secretary of State's office should not be a place to conduct private back room business deals." Source | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
That's kinda odd that she's suing him individually as opposed to FoxNews as the former employer. On the one hand, she could have to wait months to file suit against FoxNews to allow for EEOC administrative process compliance. On the other hand, I'm thinking that she might be leaving a lot of claims and money on the table. The other thing to consider is that she is only claiming relief under some oddball NYC statute prohibiting discriminatory practices. It's not entirely clear to me what damages she can claim there, but looking at the Complaint, it seems like a full suite of compensatory and punitive damages (as well as attorney's fees) are available. It could be that the Title VII claims are redundant. Still, the fact that she's only filing suit against Ailes suggests to me that this is incredibly personal. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On July 07 2016 06:08 xDaunt wrote: That's kinda odd that she's suing him individually as opposed to FoxNews as the former employer. On the one hand, she could have to wait months to file suit against FoxNews to allow for EEOC administrative process compliance. On the other hand, I'm thinking that she might be leaving a lot of claims and money on the table. The other thing to consider is that she is only claiming relief under some oddball NYC statute prohibiting discriminatory practices. It's not entirely clear to me what damages she can claim there, but looking at the Complaint, it seems like a full suite of compensatory and punitive damages (as well as attorney's fees) are available. It could be that the Title VII claims are redundant. Still, the fact that she's only filing suit against Ailes suggests to me that this is incredibly personal. I think it also diffuses any attempt to claim she is in it for the money. That seems to be the first line of defense in a sexual harassment case, discredit the person making the claim. | ||
|
CannonsNCarriers
United States638 Posts
This post is made better with a nice pic of Ailes. + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/01/08/article-2536077-1A7D4FD600000578-224_634x481.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://a5.img.talkingpointsmemo.com/image/upload/w_652/w4m9t0fat1tt1tawczo5.jpg) EDIT: on the Trump $50 million in fundraising, I don't believe it now, and I won't believe it for at least another month. Let's see what he actually shows the FEC. He may have simply claimed his discharging of campaign debt as money raised for the campaign. Trump gets zero benefits of the doubt when it comes to his finances. | ||
| ||
