|
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. |
On July 07 2016 07:56 kapibara-san wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2016 07:54 zlefin wrote:On July 07 2016 07:52 kapibara-san wrote:
The FBI is giving her plot armor because they would rather have her win than Trump
The FBI is not likely to be a nonpartisan organization, since the POTUS can be hugely influential to their operation, and if they wanted to hand the POTUS spot to Trump, they really had the means to.
I imagine this sounds far-fetched for some of you, but it really seems like the most likely explanation for me. so, you like conspiracy theories then, eh? :D I see no reason for such a fancy reason when a far simpler one will do. gogo occam's razor! i am applying occam's razor from my perspective my wife goes to harvard law... she talks to me about cases and the history of the judicial branch... there's a lot more discretion in such determinations than you seem to think hell, half of the supreme court opinions i read are just opinions cloaked in rhetoric and case law and really this is the most conspiracy-theory-sounding thing i believe do you really think the FBI thought about this decision in a vacuum and didn't consider the potential consequences of pursuing an indictment?
I'm sure the fbi considered the consequences of pursuing an indictment, but I don't think their primary motivation, or even a substantial part of it, involved who they want to be in the white house, more that it involved the reputation of the FBI. I think they concluded that they wouldn't be able to get a conviction against Clinton, and it'd look bad for them to recommend charges on such a charged issue but not get a conviction. When going after big game you want a really solid case. Also that more generally filing charges when you don't think you'll actually be able to win is something they'd rather not do.
|
On July 07 2016 07:54 zlefin wrote:
and because i'm bored, AMA on us politics! (i.e. ask me any question you want (subject to forum rules ofc) on my stances and such)
predicted timeline for either next amendment to the constitution, new constitutional convention, or violent collapse of the republic? between a new constitutional convention and violent collapse, which do you find more likely?
why shouldn't people be able to purchase and consume amphetamines/stimulants without demonstrating mental illness or disorder if they want to live like paul erdos?
He took amphetamine and methylphenidate occasionally throughout his early career. He began taking them daily at age 58, when a doctor prescribed them to him to allay the depression associated with his mother's death, and didn't stop until his death at age 83. He would also sustain himself on copious amounts of coffee and caffeine pills. Erdős took amphetamine despite the concern of his friends, one of whom (Ron Graham) bet him $500 that he could not stop taking the drug for a month. Erdős won the bet, but complained:
You've showed me I'm not an addict. But I didn't get any work done. I'd get up in the morning and stare at a blank piece of paper. I'd have no ideas, just like an ordinary person. You've set mathematics back a month.
He then promptly resumed his amphetamine use.
if they were allowed to do it on the basis of knowingly consciously trading health for productivity, should there be some sort of standard imposed on what kind of productivity is required? should there be any sort of barrier at all?
decriminalization of drugs? legalization of drugs? access to drugs via circumventing the medical/pharmaceutical establishment?
thats all i got for now
On July 07 2016 08:05 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2016 07:56 kapibara-san wrote:On July 07 2016 07:54 zlefin wrote:On July 07 2016 07:52 kapibara-san wrote:
The FBI is giving her plot armor because they would rather have her win than Trump
The FBI is not likely to be a nonpartisan organization, since the POTUS can be hugely influential to their operation, and if they wanted to hand the POTUS spot to Trump, they really had the means to.
I imagine this sounds far-fetched for some of you, but it really seems like the most likely explanation for me. so, you like conspiracy theories then, eh? :D I see no reason for such a fancy reason when a far simpler one will do. gogo occam's razor! i am applying occam's razor from my perspective my wife goes to harvard law... she talks to me about cases and the history of the judicial branch... there's a lot more discretion in such determinations than you seem to think hell, half of the supreme court opinions i read are just opinions cloaked in rhetoric and case law and really this is the most conspiracy-theory-sounding thing i believe do you really think the FBI thought about this decision in a vacuum and didn't consider the potential consequences of pursuing an indictment? I'm sure the fbi considered the consequences of pursuing an indictment, but I don't think their primary motivation, or even a substantial part of it
i agree with all your points, and we'll never know, but i just get the sense that it's more of a substantial part than you think. i don't know what kind of people the relevant higher ups in the FBI really are... feel like both scenarios are possible based on how pragmatic/bigpicture they are.
|
On July 07 2016 08:05 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2016 07:56 kapibara-san wrote:On July 07 2016 07:54 zlefin wrote:On July 07 2016 07:52 kapibara-san wrote:
The FBI is giving her plot armor because they would rather have her win than Trump
The FBI is not likely to be a nonpartisan organization, since the POTUS can be hugely influential to their operation, and if they wanted to hand the POTUS spot to Trump, they really had the means to.
I imagine this sounds far-fetched for some of you, but it really seems like the most likely explanation for me. so, you like conspiracy theories then, eh? :D I see no reason for such a fancy reason when a far simpler one will do. gogo occam's razor! i am applying occam's razor from my perspective my wife goes to harvard law... she talks to me about cases and the history of the judicial branch... there's a lot more discretion in such determinations than you seem to think hell, half of the supreme court opinions i read are just opinions cloaked in rhetoric and case law and really this is the most conspiracy-theory-sounding thing i believe do you really think the FBI thought about this decision in a vacuum and didn't consider the potential consequences of pursuing an indictment? I'm sure the fbi considered the consequences of pursuing an indictment, but I don't think their primary motivation, or even a substantial part of it, involved who they want to be in the white house, more that it involved the reputation of the FBI. I think they concluded that they wouldn't be able to get a conviction against Clinton, and it'd look bad for them to recommend charges on such a charged issue but not get a conviction. When going after big game you want a really solid case. Also that more generally filing charges when you don't think you'll actually be able to win is something they'd rather not do.
The thing is that they don't prosecute in this case, they would recommend to the DOJ and it would be them failing, and they could try to shift blame back to the FBI but I'm not so sure how that would play out in public opinion.
But if the conspiracy theories are to be believed the real dirt is what was uncovered about the Clinton Foundation during their investigation into her server. The Saudi Arabian weapons deal comes up, and some other stuff.
Also the issue is similar to what was mentioned before which is that the FBI would have to cherry pick data to only show certain peoples corruption (on both sides of the aisle) otherwise risk undermining the entire government due to how pervasively corrupted it is.
Obama coming out and saying "Hillary didn't jeopardize national security" months ago while the investigation conclusions were still pending seems to be a flashing red light indicating he or someone he values may also be implicated and Hillary has control over information that would show it. If you go back and watch that interview with that in mind suddenly his response seems to make a lot more sense than it did at the time.
Personally I'm not touching that conspiracy stuff really, but I remember people saying that those of us saying she was obviously lying were conspiracy theorists too.
|
On July 07 2016 08:09 kapibara-san wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2016 07:54 zlefin wrote:
and because i'm bored, AMA on us politics! (i.e. ask me any question you want (subject to forum rules ofc) on my stances and such) predicted timeline for either next amendment to the constitution, new constitutional convention, or violent collapse of the republic? between a new constitutional convention and violent collapse, which do you find more likely? why shouldn't people be able to purchase and consume amphetamines/stimulants without demonstrating mental illness or disorder if they want to live like paul erdos? Show nested quote +He took amphetamine and methylphenidate occasionally throughout his early career. He began taking them daily at age 58, when a doctor prescribed them to him to allay the depression associated with his mother's death, and didn't stop until his death at age 83. He would also sustain himself on copious amounts of coffee and caffeine pills. Erdős took amphetamine despite the concern of his friends, one of whom (Ron Graham) bet him $500 that he could not stop taking the drug for a month. Erdős won the bet, but complained:
You've showed me I'm not an addict. But I didn't get any work done. I'd get up in the morning and stare at a blank piece of paper. I'd have no ideas, just like an ordinary person. You've set mathematics back a month.
He then promptly resumed his amphetamine use. if they were allowed to do it on the basis of knowingly consciously trading health for productivity, should there be some sort of standard imposed on what kind of productivity is required? decriminalization of drugs? legalization of drugs? access to drugs via circumventing the medical/pharmaceutical establishment? thats all i got for now
next amendment within 20 years; a not that flashy procedural amendment that fixes some medium or small issues, or tweaks some basic rules.
Constitutional convention; I could see the public anger leading to one in the next 50 years that does some serious reworking. I don't think the bulk of the people disagree enough to kill over civil-war style.
Stimulants, maybe they should, but I note that in the case you cite, they were prescribed by a doctor. Different people have different drug responses, and for stronger drugs you wanna be quite cautious about them. For many people the actual productivity benefit isn't that high; in Erdos case, it may've been that mental illness kept him from working well without the stimulants. I'd want some detailed estimates on the risks/benefits, and on other safer options that may be available.
While from a utilitarian standpoint it would make sense to require such a showing of productivity; the costs and feasibility and (in some cases) subjectivity would make it difficult for the government to adjudicate.
depenalization (reducing the penalties for) possession in general. keep penalties for distribution. consider other changes after assessing results.
Don't circumvent the medical establishment; though possibly change some of the laws to address issues.
|
I'd want some detailed estimates on the risks/benefits, and on other safer options that may be available.
opinions on right to die? do you prefer the physician have final say even if theyre capable of presenting the full picture of their risk/benefit analysis to a mentally competent stimulant-seeker? why should people not be able to take calculated risks of their own accord? if they were able to take calculated risks, would you prefer to require some sort of test of statistical literacy?
in my idealistic mind physicians should just serve as mandatory consultants... the final decision of obtaining of which drug, if any at all should ultimately go to the person wanting them, so long as the doctor feels they understand the situation to a reasonable extent
|
@Zlefin would you vote for Bernie if he was the nominee instead of Hillary (indulge the fantasy for a moment if you would)?
That's just a general question to anyone who thinks they would vote for Clinton in Nov. as well, if not, what would you do?
|
yea bernie over trump
i seem to recall some earlier polls indicated he'd win that H2H too
o wait im not voting for either bernie or hillary im from california and im complacent in my confidence that it will remain deep blue
|
Clinton > Bernie > The rest of the universe > Trump
|
Clinton >Maybesomeoneelse?> Bernie > The rest of the universe > Trump
|
On July 07 2016 08:28 kapibara-san wrote:Show nested quote +I'd want some detailed estimates on the risks/benefits, and on other safer options that may be available. opinions on right to die? do you prefer the physician have final say even if theyre capable of presenting the full picture of their risk/benefit analysis to a mentally competent stimulant-seeker? why should people not be able to take calculated risks of their own accord? if they were able to take calculated risks, would you prefer to require some sort of test of statistical literacy? in my idealistic mind physicians should just serve as mandatory consultants... the final decision of obtaining of which drug, if any at all should ultimately go to the person wanting them, so long as the doctor feels they understand the situation to a reasonable extent
right to die on what? Allowing death for terminally ill, fine. for severe painful illness, I guess. otherwise no for now. Are your following questions followups on the prior issue of stimulants, or do they relate to the right to die issue? More paragraph breaks would help to clarify which questions are on which topic.
gh -> yes I'd vote for bernie in that case.
|
On July 07 2016 08:29 GreenHorizons wrote:
@Zlefin would you vote for Bernie if he was the nominee instead of Hillary (indulge the fantasy for a moment if you would)?
That's just a general question to anyone who thinks they would vote for Clinton in Nov. as well, if not, what would you do?
to try to generalize the answer, i just feel that most clinton voters would never vote trump and would likely not vote 3rd party over bernie
like over 99% of clinton voters in my head
the real question is how many would choose not to vote in bernie v trump, and i don't think that's a significant chunk either
|
On July 07 2016 08:43 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2016 08:28 kapibara-san wrote:I'd want some detailed estimates on the risks/benefits, and on other safer options that may be available. opinions on right to die? do you prefer the physician have final say even if theyre capable of presenting the full picture of their risk/benefit analysis to a mentally competent stimulant-seeker? why should people not be able to take calculated risks of their own accord? if they were able to take calculated risks, would you prefer to require some sort of test of statistical literacy? in my idealistic mind physicians should just serve as mandatory consultants... the final decision of obtaining of which drug, if any at all should ultimately go to the person wanting them, so long as the doctor feels they understand the situation to a reasonable extent right to die on what? Allowing death for terminally ill, fine. for severe painful illness, I guess. otherwise no for now. Are your following questions followups on the prior issue of stimulants, or do they relate to the right to die issue? More paragraph breaks would help to clarify which questions are on which topic. gh -> yes I'd vote for bernie in that case.
sorry yeah i'm lacking sleep, i should've put a break right after right to die, which was completely separate from the following questions, which were just about the drug prescription process in general.
|
|
|
On July 07 2016 08:47 kapibara-san wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2016 08:43 zlefin wrote:On July 07 2016 08:28 kapibara-san wrote:I'd want some detailed estimates on the risks/benefits, and on other safer options that may be available. opinions on right to die? do you prefer the physician have final say even if theyre capable of presenting the full picture of their risk/benefit analysis to a mentally competent stimulant-seeker? why should people not be able to take calculated risks of their own accord? if they were able to take calculated risks, would you prefer to require some sort of test of statistical literacy? in my idealistic mind physicians should just serve as mandatory consultants... the final decision of obtaining of which drug, if any at all should ultimately go to the person wanting them, so long as the doctor feels they understand the situation to a reasonable extent right to die on what? Allowing death for terminally ill, fine. for severe painful illness, I guess. otherwise no for now. Are your following questions followups on the prior issue of stimulants, or do they relate to the right to die issue? More paragraph breaks would help to clarify which questions are on which topic. gh -> yes I'd vote for bernie in that case. sorry yeah i'm lacking sleep, i should've put a break right after right to die, which was completely separate from the following questions, which were just about the drug prescription process in general.
not sure who should have final say. History has shown that if it's up to the physician, there's likely to be a lot of variation and doctor-shopping; but it's also the case that most people suck at making complicated judgments, especially when it comes to statistics and risk estimation. In point of fact, many physicians coudln't state the statistical case in great detail either. Some calculated risks should be allowed, but in some cases the evidence is so clear to favor one choice, that the social costs justify a requirement. Most people have terrible statistical literacy, I wouldn't expect enough people to pass anything at a decent level of understanding.
Simple rules also tend to be much easier to enforce/adjudicate.
|
suddenly i have insight as to why my point about unproductive diversions into cliches was hard to understand
On July 07 2016 08:59 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2016 08:47 kapibara-san wrote:On July 07 2016 08:43 zlefin wrote:On July 07 2016 08:28 kapibara-san wrote:I'd want some detailed estimates on the risks/benefits, and on other safer options that may be available. opinions on right to die? do you prefer the physician have final say even if theyre capable of presenting the full picture of their risk/benefit analysis to a mentally competent stimulant-seeker? why should people not be able to take calculated risks of their own accord? if they were able to take calculated risks, would you prefer to require some sort of test of statistical literacy? in my idealistic mind physicians should just serve as mandatory consultants... the final decision of obtaining of which drug, if any at all should ultimately go to the person wanting them, so long as the doctor feels they understand the situation to a reasonable extent right to die on what? Allowing death for terminally ill, fine. for severe painful illness, I guess. otherwise no for now. Are your following questions followups on the prior issue of stimulants, or do they relate to the right to die issue? More paragraph breaks would help to clarify which questions are on which topic. gh -> yes I'd vote for bernie in that case. sorry yeah i'm lacking sleep, i should've put a break right after right to die, which was completely separate from the following questions, which were just about the drug prescription process in general. not sure who should have final say. History has shown that if it's up to the physician, there's likely to be a lot of variation and doctor-shopping; but it's also the case that most people suck at making complicated judgments, especially when it comes to statistics and risk estimation. In point of fact, many physicians coudln't state the statistical case in great detail either. Some calculated risks should be allowed, but in some cases the evidence is so clear to favor one choice, that the social costs justify a requirement. Most people have terrible statistical literacy, I wouldn't expect enough people to pass anything at a decent level of understanding. Simple rules also tend to be much easier to enforce/adjudicate.
yea im a bit of an extreme libertarian when it comes to personal freedom in drugs... but i understand all your practical concerns
thanks for the response
|
On July 07 2016 08:45 kapibara-san wrote:Show nested quote +On July 07 2016 08:29 GreenHorizons wrote:
@Zlefin would you vote for Bernie if he was the nominee instead of Hillary (indulge the fantasy for a moment if you would)?
That's just a general question to anyone who thinks they would vote for Clinton in Nov. as well, if not, what would you do? to try to generalize the answer, i just feel that most clinton voters would never vote trump and would likely not vote 3rd party over bernie like over 99% of clinton voters in my head the real question is how many would choose not to vote in bernie v trump, and i don't think that's a significant chunk either
I think that's a fair assessment. Any chance Hillary supporters could see how her recent hiccups, Trump's lines of attack, the stubbornness of Sanders supporters, the difference in Trump v Bernie's honesty and favorability numbers throughout the campaign, combined with this practical observation could mean that in an honest analysis one could come to the conclusion that nominating Bernie could be the most likely to result in a Democratic President, if even by a hair?
Not that it's indisputable that he would win or anything, but that honest and accurate analysis could arrive at the conclusion that should he be nominated with Clinton's somewhat forced endorsement (as a result of circumstances), Bernie would be more likely to win than Hillary (with Bernie's somewhat forced endorsement) by even a .001% chance? Or is even now, that a preposterous idea?
@Zlef you can take a crack at that too if you want. + Show Spoiler +Tried to make that as non-inflammatory as I could in the spirit of this dialogue we're giving a chance.
|
You all should stop posting about the HRC emails without citing any articles or facts, and try listening to the real threat to this country. Scroll the feed back. Trump just gave his absolutely most unhinged speech. He spent 10 minutes rehashing the HRC-email thing based on prepared lies. It was crap, went nowhere, about as effective as the citation-free posts above. Then Trump delves deeeeep in Saddam, Chuck Todd, the 6 pointed star post, and his amazing real estate goodness. We could spend the next 6 months arguing about HRC's decision to route her work emails through a private server through her blackberry so she could email off one device, but doing so would miss the real danger Trump poses this country.
http://heavy.com/news/2016/07/donald-trump-rally-speech-event-live-stream-livestream-cincinnati-ohio-newt-gingrich-vice-president-watch-online-youtube/
EDIT: listen to the screaming fans, all my "boo don't say fascim" stuff, I fully retract.
|
On July 07 2016 09:01 CannonsNCarriers wrote:You all should stop posting about the HRC emails without citing any articles or facts, and try listening to the real threat to this country. Scroll the feed back. Trump just gave his absolutely most unhinged speech. He spent 10 minutes rehashing the HRC-email thing based on prepared lies. It was crap, went nowhere, about as effective as the citation-free posts above. Then Trump delves deeeeep in Saddam, Chuck Todd, the 6 pointed star post, and his amazing real estate goodness. We could spend the next 6 months arguing about HRC's decision to route her work emails through a private server through her blackberry so she could email off one device, but doing so would miss the real danger Trump poses this country. http://heavy.com/news/2016/07/donald-trump-rally-speech-event-live-stream-livestream-cincinnati-ohio-newt-gingrich-vice-president-watch-online-youtube/EDIT: listen to the screaming fans, all my "boo don't say fascim" stuff, I fully retract.
We went in-depth into the official FBI report on the emails a few pages ago. She lied. No one is even disputing this anymore, not even MSNBC.
Here is the statement from the source. If you insist on going on like this at least read it -
https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b.-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clintons-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system
Regarding the Trump rally, do you really scare that easily? He likes having fun at his rallies. They're all working, law-abiding citizens. That's more than you can say for the people who violently protested at his rallies in May/June, assaulting people for wearing MAGA hats, burning american flags, and damaging property. Who are you really trying to call a fascist here? Quit being so melodramatic it's a pathetic attack to call him Hitler and his supporters fascists.
|
@GH
i feel like both have a pretty solid chance of beating trump. bernie maybe even higher, but in my eyes its just a question of who wins by a bigger margin, which isn't that meaningful. i think both would win, and the difference in chance is not significant enough to matter.
though on a meta note, your continued repeated thoughts about bernie are still pretty off-putting to me. on the one hand, most of what's going on in this thread is just inconsequential musing, but on the other, this is the type of musing that's among what i'm least interested in. bernie has no chance this year barring some sort of extreme circumstances involving hillary not being able to run anymore.
|
?maybesomeoneelse > trump>maybesomeoneelse?>clinton>bernie
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
