|
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 14 2016 04:45 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2016 04:32 Biff The Understudy wrote:On July 14 2016 04:27 Introvert wrote:On July 14 2016 04:21 Biff The Understudy wrote:On July 14 2016 03:21 Introvert wrote:
Look at the polls. Hillary plunging. But guess what? Trump isn't enjoying an increase of support. So unless Trump shows some actual discipline and messaging, she'll recover her lead. The worst news cycle for Hillary perhaps ever, and he's squeaking out a few statistical ties. We all warn about the usefulness of polls, but there is a pattern here that should be acknowledged.
Comey raked Clinton over the coals, it would be a crime to not pound away at this from now on. What poll? I looked at that poll agregator, and Clinton is beating Trump by a 3 to 10 points margin, except for Rasmussen which has always been a joke. I scrolled as far as I could and it looks like it has been more or less the same margin for at least a month. The ones out today, in particular the swing state polls. They are the best numbers he's seen in months. Mc Clatchy gives Clinton a +3 lead, +5 with the the two independent candidates, the Economist gives her a +3 lead. There were +3 spread polls a month ago. How is that a huge plunge? And how can you make a conclusion on general tendencies on a one day basis? That doesn't make sense unless something major, like a huge scandal or a big debate comes in between. Which hasn't happened. I'm on my phone out and about so I can't give specifics, but Hillary usually polls higher than low 40s. Especially in states like Florida. And no major scandal? Are you joking?
Clearly Clinton's "extreme carelessness" was manufactured by Republicans.
|
On July 14 2016 04:45 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2016 04:32 Biff The Understudy wrote:On July 14 2016 04:27 Introvert wrote:On July 14 2016 04:21 Biff The Understudy wrote:On July 14 2016 03:21 Introvert wrote:
Look at the polls. Hillary plunging. But guess what? Trump isn't enjoying an increase of support. So unless Trump shows some actual discipline and messaging, she'll recover her lead. The worst news cycle for Hillary perhaps ever, and he's squeaking out a few statistical ties. We all warn about the usefulness of polls, but there is a pattern here that should be acknowledged.
Comey raked Clinton over the coals, it would be a crime to not pound away at this from now on. What poll? I looked at that poll agregator, and Clinton is beating Trump by a 3 to 10 points margin, except for Rasmussen which has always been a joke. I scrolled as far as I could and it looks like it has been more or less the same margin for at least a month. The ones out today, in particular the swing state polls. They are the best numbers he's seen in months. Mc Clatchy gives Clinton a +3 lead, +5 with the the two independent candidates, the Economist gives her a +3 lead. There were +3 spread polls a month ago. How is that a huge plunge? And how can you make a conclusion on general tendencies on a one day basis? That doesn't make sense unless something major, like a huge scandal or a big debate comes in between. Which hasn't happened. I'm on my phone out and about so I can't give specifics, but Hillary usually polls higher than low 40s. Especially in states like Florida. And no major scandal? Are you joking?
You referring to her email server again? It's really getting old.
|
The FBI has quietly been collecting iris scans from 434,000 people over the last three years during a "pilot program" involving multiple police departments, the Pentagon and U.S. border patrol, according to a report published Tuesday on The Verge.
The project, which was launched in September 2013, has seen the FBI collaborate with agencies in Texas, Missouri and California, according to documents obtained by the site.
In California, the counties of Los Angeles, Riverside and San Bernardino have contributed scans, with the latter's sheriff's department harvesting more than 200,000 scans alone. An average of 189 iris scans were collected every day at the start of 2016.
The FBI says it started what it calls the Iris Pilot in 2013 "to evaluate technology, address key challenges and develop a system capable of performing iris image recognition services." The pilot also aims to build a criminal iris repository.
It's a part of the FBI's Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) Division's broader Next Generation Identification (NGI) project that aims to replace mere fingerprint databases with palm prints, iris scans and facial recognition to create what it calls "the world's largest and most efficient electronic repository of biometric and criminal history information."
The technology jumped out of Minority Report and into the real world years ago, starting mostly at airports. Police departments in the U.S. are scanning the irises of prisoners in custody. In 2015, a long distance iris scanner that works from 40 feet away was unveiled.
Source
|
On July 14 2016 04:48 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2016 04:45 Introvert wrote:On July 14 2016 04:32 Biff The Understudy wrote:On July 14 2016 04:27 Introvert wrote:On July 14 2016 04:21 Biff The Understudy wrote:On July 14 2016 03:21 Introvert wrote:
Look at the polls. Hillary plunging. But guess what? Trump isn't enjoying an increase of support. So unless Trump shows some actual discipline and messaging, she'll recover her lead. The worst news cycle for Hillary perhaps ever, and he's squeaking out a few statistical ties. We all warn about the usefulness of polls, but there is a pattern here that should be acknowledged.
Comey raked Clinton over the coals, it would be a crime to not pound away at this from now on. What poll? I looked at that poll agregator, and Clinton is beating Trump by a 3 to 10 points margin, except for Rasmussen which has always been a joke. I scrolled as far as I could and it looks like it has been more or less the same margin for at least a month. The ones out today, in particular the swing state polls. They are the best numbers he's seen in months. Mc Clatchy gives Clinton a +3 lead, +5 with the the two independent candidates, the Economist gives her a +3 lead. There were +3 spread polls a month ago. How is that a huge plunge? And how can you make a conclusion on general tendencies on a one day basis? That doesn't make sense unless something major, like a huge scandal or a big debate comes in between. Which hasn't happened. I'm on my phone out and about so I can't give specifics, but Hillary usually polls higher than low 40s. Especially in states like Florida. And no major scandal? Are you joking? Clearly Clinton's "extreme carelessness" was manufactured by Republicans.
Absolutely not. She has mishandled her email server, and that's a screw up. Everyone agree.
Now the fact that it has become the focus of this election while we are talking about the deportation of millions of people, about the future of America in the world, about economic policy that will shape the country for generation and about climate change position that threaten the whole fucking planet is, indeed manufactured by Republicans.
Probably because they have VERY little to show for with the joke they have chosen as a candidate. And/or because talking actual platform when your agenda is detrimental to 98% of the population sucks, and concentrating for a year on a minor scandal probably works better.
And that note, gentlemen, I am going to have dinner. Have a good evening.
|
On July 14 2016 03:21 Introvert wrote:
Look at the polls. Hillary plunging. But guess what? Trump isn't enjoying an increase of support. So unless Trump shows some actual discipline and messaging, she'll recover her lead. The worst news cycle for Hillary perhaps ever, and he's squeaking out a few statistical ties. We all warn about the usefulness of polls, but there is a pattern here that should be acknowledged.
Comey raked Clinton over the coals, it would be a crime to not pound away at this from now on.
Yeah. Bernie endorsement still not in full swing and the Comey stuff is huge. But it's out of the way now. At this point, the media machine can blast Clinton stuff constantly until November. This was the lurking time bomb and it finally went off. Took some damage. But it's recoverable.
|
On July 14 2016 04:27 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2016 04:21 Biff The Understudy wrote:On July 14 2016 03:21 Introvert wrote:
Look at the polls. Hillary plunging. But guess what? Trump isn't enjoying an increase of support. So unless Trump shows some actual discipline and messaging, she'll recover her lead. The worst news cycle for Hillary perhaps ever, and he's squeaking out a few statistical ties. We all warn about the usefulness of polls, but there is a pattern here that should be acknowledged.
Comey raked Clinton over the coals, it would be a crime to not pound away at this from now on. What poll? I looked at that poll agregator, and Clinton is beating Trump by a 3 to 10 points margin, except for Rasmussen which has always been a joke. I scrolled as far as I could and it looks like it has been more or less the same margin for at least a month. The ones out today, in particular the swing state polls. They are the best numbers he's seen in months.
http://polling.reuters.com/#!poll/TM651Y15_13/filters/LIKELY:1/type/smallest/dates/20160501-20160712/collapsed/true/spotlight/1
If those are the best numbers he's seen in months I want to get in on some of those bets we have floating around
|
The UK thread was not an argument Bill it was me asking questions and then getting flamed by a group of people irritated for me questioning their pseudointellectual assumptions with biblical fervor.
And someone brought up in the debate a stupid buzz about Trump having small hands implying 'small something else' so he took the joke and reversed it. That isn't him going around bragging about his dick size it's him taking what's being thrown at him and working with it.
If you insist on asserting your antagonistic remarks that serve no purpose but to circlejerk around Hillary while being unfair to her opponent, go for it. I wouldn't expect any less from you.
|
United States42009 Posts
On July 14 2016 05:32 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
The UK thread was not an argument Bill it was me asking questions and then getting flamed by a group of people irritated for me questioning their pseudointellectual assumptions with biblical fervor.
And someone brought up in the debate a stupid buzz about Trump having small hands implying 'small something else' so he took the joke and reversed it. That isn't him going around bragging about his dick size it's him taking what's being thrown at him and working with it.
If you insist on asserting your antagonistic remarks that serve no purpose but to circlejerk around Hillary while being unfair to her opponent, go for it. I wouldn't expect any less from you.
You were making a fool of yourself in the UK thread but if you actually want to respond to it then
+ Show Spoiler +On July 06 2016 12:17 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2016 06:52 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
I don't understand why this is supposed to be ruinous it's not like the EU is going to embargo the UK now. This is quite easy to understand if you think of the United States as a customs union. Imagine a company in Texas came up with a new drug. Before they could sell it they would need FDA approval. They say "fuck the bureaucrats and the faceless regulations" and Texas secedes from the Union. They found the Texas Drug Approval Board which certifies that the drug is safe and start selling it in Texas immediately. They also make an agreement with South Africa or somewhere to recognize TDAB drugs as good for sale and legal to import. However the other 49 states still have the FDA approved drugs only rule so there is a de facto embargo because coming up with your own rules is one thing but making other people respect them is another. Meanwhile the EU refuses to license TDAB drugs in Europe because they have a tough negotiated deal with the FDA to apply the same standards so FDA drugs meet EU standards and EU drugs meet US standards because both of them want access to each other's markets. But the EU doesn't give a shit about the Texas market and certainly doesn't want to open up their entire internal market to the TDAB, especially not unless the TDAB tightens shit up. The EU FDA deal was between two big markets which both needed each other, the TDAB has no leverage. So for now the drug is only sold in Texas and South Africa. The company that makes it wants access to the big US market and while there is no embargo the rule they didn't like is still there so they apply for FDA approval. The FDA charge them a shitton but they eventually get it which, oddly enough, is the process they left to avoid in the first place. Now they've decided to voluntarily comply with the common market rules anyway they can sell to all of the customers within it. Of course there is an import duty from the independent state of Texas but at least they're selling. A year later the company comes up with a new drug. They beg Texas to rejoin the US.
|
On July 14 2016 05:35 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2016 05:32 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
The UK thread was not an argument Bill it was me asking questions and then getting flamed by a group of people irritated for me questioning their pseudointellectual assumptions with biblical fervor.
And someone brought up in the debate a stupid buzz about Trump having small hands implying 'small something else' so he took the joke and reversed it. That isn't him going around bragging about his dick size it's him taking what's being thrown at him and working with it.
If you insist on asserting your antagonistic remarks that serve no purpose but to circlejerk around Hillary while being unfair to her opponent, go for it. I wouldn't expect any less from you. You were making a fool of yourself in the UK thread but if you actually want to respond to it then + Show Spoiler +On July 06 2016 12:17 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2016 06:52 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
I don't understand why this is supposed to be ruinous it's not like the EU is going to embargo the UK now. This is quite easy to understand if you think of the United States as a customs union. Imagine a company in Texas came up with a new drug. Before they could sell it they would need FDA approval. They say "fuck the bureaucrats and the faceless regulations" and Texas secedes from the Union. They found the Texas Drug Approval Board which certifies that the drug is safe and start selling it in Texas immediately. They also make an agreement with South Africa or somewhere to recognize TDAB drugs as good for sale and legal to import. However the other 49 states still have the FDA approved drugs only rule so there is a de facto embargo because coming up with your own rules is one thing but making other people respect them is another. Meanwhile the EU refuses to license TDAB drugs in Europe because they have a tough negotiated deal with the FDA to apply the same standards so FDA drugs meet EU standards and EU drugs meet US standards because both of them want access to each other's markets. But the EU doesn't give a shit about the Texas market and certainly doesn't want to open up their entire internal market to the TDAB, especially not unless the TDAB tightens shit up. The EU FDA deal was between two big markets which both needed each other, the TDAB has no leverage. So for now the drug is only sold in Texas and South Africa. The company that makes it wants access to the big US market and while there is no embargo the rule they didn't like is still there so they apply for FDA approval. The FDA charge them a shitton but they eventually get it which, oddly enough, is the process they left to avoid in the first place. Now they've decided to voluntarily comply with the common market rules anyway they can sell to all of the customers within it. Of course there is an import duty from the independent state of Texas but at least they're selling. A year later the company comes up with a new drug. They beg Texas to rejoin the US.
I only read the BBC page on the pros and cons of Brexit which presented the groundwork of the arguments from both positions on the deal.
I self-admittedly was and still am fairly ignorant on the effects of Brexit on England and the EU. Hearing a group of individuals flame me about how all the economists say it's ruinous and horrible and I'm a moron for being skeptical is something I've seen millennial friends I went to highs school with whine about on social media already. I wanted a better understanding of the situation and believed TL would be a decent source of information and arguments from both sides, much better so than a pro-brexit or anti-brexit dominated forum which would largely not represent the other side well. What I received was not that. It was just an anti-brexit circlejerk that didn't know how to respectfully engage with someone questioning their position.
You say I acted like a fool but I'd say that thread was just a mess.
I appreciate the well-thought-out explanation and response however.
I'll say you're an intelligent asshole, which you should take as a compliment if I understand you at all.
|
On July 14 2016 05:49 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2016 05:35 KwarK wrote:On July 14 2016 05:32 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
The UK thread was not an argument Bill it was me asking questions and then getting flamed by a group of people irritated for me questioning their pseudointellectual assumptions with biblical fervor.
And someone brought up in the debate a stupid buzz about Trump having small hands implying 'small something else' so he took the joke and reversed it. That isn't him going around bragging about his dick size it's him taking what's being thrown at him and working with it.
If you insist on asserting your antagonistic remarks that serve no purpose but to circlejerk around Hillary while being unfair to her opponent, go for it. I wouldn't expect any less from you. You were making a fool of yourself in the UK thread but if you actually want to respond to it then + Show Spoiler +On July 06 2016 12:17 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2016 06:52 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
I don't understand why this is supposed to be ruinous it's not like the EU is going to embargo the UK now. This is quite easy to understand if you think of the United States as a customs union. Imagine a company in Texas came up with a new drug. Before they could sell it they would need FDA approval. They say "fuck the bureaucrats and the faceless regulations" and Texas secedes from the Union. They found the Texas Drug Approval Board which certifies that the drug is safe and start selling it in Texas immediately. They also make an agreement with South Africa or somewhere to recognize TDAB drugs as good for sale and legal to import. However the other 49 states still have the FDA approved drugs only rule so there is a de facto embargo because coming up with your own rules is one thing but making other people respect them is another. Meanwhile the EU refuses to license TDAB drugs in Europe because they have a tough negotiated deal with the FDA to apply the same standards so FDA drugs meet EU standards and EU drugs meet US standards because both of them want access to each other's markets. But the EU doesn't give a shit about the Texas market and certainly doesn't want to open up their entire internal market to the TDAB, especially not unless the TDAB tightens shit up. The EU FDA deal was between two big markets which both needed each other, the TDAB has no leverage. So for now the drug is only sold in Texas and South Africa. The company that makes it wants access to the big US market and while there is no embargo the rule they didn't like is still there so they apply for FDA approval. The FDA charge them a shitton but they eventually get it which, oddly enough, is the process they left to avoid in the first place. Now they've decided to voluntarily comply with the common market rules anyway they can sell to all of the customers within it. Of course there is an import duty from the independent state of Texas but at least they're selling. A year later the company comes up with a new drug. They beg Texas to rejoin the US. I only read the BBC page on the pros and cons of Brexit which presented the groundwork of the arguments from both positions on the deal. I self-admittedly was and still am fairly ignorant on the effects of Brexit on England and the EU. Hearing a group of individuals flame me about how all the economists say it's ruinous and horrible and I'm a moron for being skeptical is something I've seen millennial friends I went to highs school with whine about on social media already. I wanted a better understanding of the situation and believed TL would be a decent source of information and arguments from both sides, much better so than a pro-brexit or anti-brexit dominated forum which would largely not represent the other side well. What I received was not that. It was just an anti-brexit circlejerk that didn't know how to respectfully engage with someone questioning their position. You say I acted like a fool but I'd say that thread was just a mess. I appreciate the well-thought-out explanation and response however. I'll say you're an intelligent asshole, which you should take as a compliment if I understand you at all.
If you wanted a better understanding you would have posted a question, not a rhetorical question as you did.
|
On July 14 2016 05:54 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2016 05:49 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On July 14 2016 05:35 KwarK wrote:On July 14 2016 05:32 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
The UK thread was not an argument Bill it was me asking questions and then getting flamed by a group of people irritated for me questioning their pseudointellectual assumptions with biblical fervor.
And someone brought up in the debate a stupid buzz about Trump having small hands implying 'small something else' so he took the joke and reversed it. That isn't him going around bragging about his dick size it's him taking what's being thrown at him and working with it.
If you insist on asserting your antagonistic remarks that serve no purpose but to circlejerk around Hillary while being unfair to her opponent, go for it. I wouldn't expect any less from you. You were making a fool of yourself in the UK thread but if you actually want to respond to it then + Show Spoiler +On July 06 2016 12:17 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2016 06:52 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
I don't understand why this is supposed to be ruinous it's not like the EU is going to embargo the UK now. This is quite easy to understand if you think of the United States as a customs union. Imagine a company in Texas came up with a new drug. Before they could sell it they would need FDA approval. They say "fuck the bureaucrats and the faceless regulations" and Texas secedes from the Union. They found the Texas Drug Approval Board which certifies that the drug is safe and start selling it in Texas immediately. They also make an agreement with South Africa or somewhere to recognize TDAB drugs as good for sale and legal to import. However the other 49 states still have the FDA approved drugs only rule so there is a de facto embargo because coming up with your own rules is one thing but making other people respect them is another. Meanwhile the EU refuses to license TDAB drugs in Europe because they have a tough negotiated deal with the FDA to apply the same standards so FDA drugs meet EU standards and EU drugs meet US standards because both of them want access to each other's markets. But the EU doesn't give a shit about the Texas market and certainly doesn't want to open up their entire internal market to the TDAB, especially not unless the TDAB tightens shit up. The EU FDA deal was between two big markets which both needed each other, the TDAB has no leverage. So for now the drug is only sold in Texas and South Africa. The company that makes it wants access to the big US market and while there is no embargo the rule they didn't like is still there so they apply for FDA approval. The FDA charge them a shitton but they eventually get it which, oddly enough, is the process they left to avoid in the first place. Now they've decided to voluntarily comply with the common market rules anyway they can sell to all of the customers within it. Of course there is an import duty from the independent state of Texas but at least they're selling. A year later the company comes up with a new drug. They beg Texas to rejoin the US. I only read the BBC page on the pros and cons of Brexit which presented the groundwork of the arguments from both positions on the deal. I self-admittedly was and still am fairly ignorant on the effects of Brexit on England and the EU. Hearing a group of individuals flame me about how all the economists say it's ruinous and horrible and I'm a moron for being skeptical is something I've seen millennial friends I went to highs school with whine about on social media already. I wanted a better understanding of the situation and believed TL would be a decent source of information and arguments from both sides, much better so than a pro-brexit or anti-brexit dominated forum which would largely not represent the other side well. What I received was not that. It was just an anti-brexit circlejerk that didn't know how to respectfully engage with someone questioning their position. You say I acted like a fool but I'd say that thread was just a mess. I appreciate the well-thought-out explanation and response however. I'll say you're an intelligent asshole, which you should take as a compliment if I understand you at all. If you wanted a better understanding you would have posted a question, not a rhetorical question as you did.
Maybe it was a leading question, a challenging question, but it was not rhetorical.
Forbid someone questions someones beliefs which are so obviously true. I don't think religious thinking will ever die, even in the absence of religions.
|
If I remember correctly, the real flaming started when people started posting out the Brexit was going to negatively affect them. Naturally, these posts were pretty heated and frustrated, as there was some substance to how the vote was going to change their lives or the lives of people they knew.
And then someone decided to complain about how emotional and negative those posts were and people got grumpy. While also posting leading questions about a topic they knew little about and become very defensive when people responded to both negatively.
|
On July 14 2016 05:56 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2016 05:54 Dan HH wrote:On July 14 2016 05:49 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On July 14 2016 05:35 KwarK wrote:On July 14 2016 05:32 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
The UK thread was not an argument Bill it was me asking questions and then getting flamed by a group of people irritated for me questioning their pseudointellectual assumptions with biblical fervor.
And someone brought up in the debate a stupid buzz about Trump having small hands implying 'small something else' so he took the joke and reversed it. That isn't him going around bragging about his dick size it's him taking what's being thrown at him and working with it.
If you insist on asserting your antagonistic remarks that serve no purpose but to circlejerk around Hillary while being unfair to her opponent, go for it. I wouldn't expect any less from you. You were making a fool of yourself in the UK thread but if you actually want to respond to it then + Show Spoiler +On July 06 2016 12:17 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2016 06:52 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
I don't understand why this is supposed to be ruinous it's not like the EU is going to embargo the UK now. This is quite easy to understand if you think of the United States as a customs union. Imagine a company in Texas came up with a new drug. Before they could sell it they would need FDA approval. They say "fuck the bureaucrats and the faceless regulations" and Texas secedes from the Union. They found the Texas Drug Approval Board which certifies that the drug is safe and start selling it in Texas immediately. They also make an agreement with South Africa or somewhere to recognize TDAB drugs as good for sale and legal to import. However the other 49 states still have the FDA approved drugs only rule so there is a de facto embargo because coming up with your own rules is one thing but making other people respect them is another. Meanwhile the EU refuses to license TDAB drugs in Europe because they have a tough negotiated deal with the FDA to apply the same standards so FDA drugs meet EU standards and EU drugs meet US standards because both of them want access to each other's markets. But the EU doesn't give a shit about the Texas market and certainly doesn't want to open up their entire internal market to the TDAB, especially not unless the TDAB tightens shit up. The EU FDA deal was between two big markets which both needed each other, the TDAB has no leverage. So for now the drug is only sold in Texas and South Africa. The company that makes it wants access to the big US market and while there is no embargo the rule they didn't like is still there so they apply for FDA approval. The FDA charge them a shitton but they eventually get it which, oddly enough, is the process they left to avoid in the first place. Now they've decided to voluntarily comply with the common market rules anyway they can sell to all of the customers within it. Of course there is an import duty from the independent state of Texas but at least they're selling. A year later the company comes up with a new drug. They beg Texas to rejoin the US. I only read the BBC page on the pros and cons of Brexit which presented the groundwork of the arguments from both positions on the deal. I self-admittedly was and still am fairly ignorant on the effects of Brexit on England and the EU. Hearing a group of individuals flame me about how all the economists say it's ruinous and horrible and I'm a moron for being skeptical is something I've seen millennial friends I went to highs school with whine about on social media already. I wanted a better understanding of the situation and believed TL would be a decent source of information and arguments from both sides, much better so than a pro-brexit or anti-brexit dominated forum which would largely not represent the other side well. What I received was not that. It was just an anti-brexit circlejerk that didn't know how to respectfully engage with someone questioning their position. You say I acted like a fool but I'd say that thread was just a mess. I appreciate the well-thought-out explanation and response however. I'll say you're an intelligent asshole, which you should take as a compliment if I understand you at all. If you wanted a better understanding you would have posted a question, not a rhetorical question as you did. Maybe it was a leading question, a challenging question, but it was not rhetorical. Forbid someone questions someones beliefs which are so obviously true. I don't think religious thinking will ever die, even in the absence of religions.
It was an idiotic question if you refer to the embargos/sanctions.
Neither leading, nor challenging. Not even intelligently trolled. Just dumb as fuck. Or purposely ignorant.
User was warned for this post
|
On July 14 2016 06:02 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2016 05:56 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On July 14 2016 05:54 Dan HH wrote:On July 14 2016 05:49 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On July 14 2016 05:35 KwarK wrote:On July 14 2016 05:32 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
The UK thread was not an argument Bill it was me asking questions and then getting flamed by a group of people irritated for me questioning their pseudointellectual assumptions with biblical fervor.
And someone brought up in the debate a stupid buzz about Trump having small hands implying 'small something else' so he took the joke and reversed it. That isn't him going around bragging about his dick size it's him taking what's being thrown at him and working with it.
If you insist on asserting your antagonistic remarks that serve no purpose but to circlejerk around Hillary while being unfair to her opponent, go for it. I wouldn't expect any less from you. You were making a fool of yourself in the UK thread but if you actually want to respond to it then + Show Spoiler +On July 06 2016 12:17 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2016 06:52 GGTeMpLaR wrote:
I don't understand why this is supposed to be ruinous it's not like the EU is going to embargo the UK now. This is quite easy to understand if you think of the United States as a customs union. Imagine a company in Texas came up with a new drug. Before they could sell it they would need FDA approval. They say "fuck the bureaucrats and the faceless regulations" and Texas secedes from the Union. They found the Texas Drug Approval Board which certifies that the drug is safe and start selling it in Texas immediately. They also make an agreement with South Africa or somewhere to recognize TDAB drugs as good for sale and legal to import. However the other 49 states still have the FDA approved drugs only rule so there is a de facto embargo because coming up with your own rules is one thing but making other people respect them is another. Meanwhile the EU refuses to license TDAB drugs in Europe because they have a tough negotiated deal with the FDA to apply the same standards so FDA drugs meet EU standards and EU drugs meet US standards because both of them want access to each other's markets. But the EU doesn't give a shit about the Texas market and certainly doesn't want to open up their entire internal market to the TDAB, especially not unless the TDAB tightens shit up. The EU FDA deal was between two big markets which both needed each other, the TDAB has no leverage. So for now the drug is only sold in Texas and South Africa. The company that makes it wants access to the big US market and while there is no embargo the rule they didn't like is still there so they apply for FDA approval. The FDA charge them a shitton but they eventually get it which, oddly enough, is the process they left to avoid in the first place. Now they've decided to voluntarily comply with the common market rules anyway they can sell to all of the customers within it. Of course there is an import duty from the independent state of Texas but at least they're selling. A year later the company comes up with a new drug. They beg Texas to rejoin the US. I only read the BBC page on the pros and cons of Brexit which presented the groundwork of the arguments from both positions on the deal. I self-admittedly was and still am fairly ignorant on the effects of Brexit on England and the EU. Hearing a group of individuals flame me about how all the economists say it's ruinous and horrible and I'm a moron for being skeptical is something I've seen millennial friends I went to highs school with whine about on social media already. I wanted a better understanding of the situation and believed TL would be a decent source of information and arguments from both sides, much better so than a pro-brexit or anti-brexit dominated forum which would largely not represent the other side well. What I received was not that. It was just an anti-brexit circlejerk that didn't know how to respectfully engage with someone questioning their position. You say I acted like a fool but I'd say that thread was just a mess. I appreciate the well-thought-out explanation and response however. I'll say you're an intelligent asshole, which you should take as a compliment if I understand you at all. If you wanted a better understanding you would have posted a question, not a rhetorical question as you did. Maybe it was a leading question, a challenging question, but it was not rhetorical. Forbid someone questions someones beliefs which are so obviously true. I don't think religious thinking will ever die, even in the absence of religions. It was an idiotic question if you refer to the embargos/sanctions. Neither leading, nor challenging. Not even intelligently trolled. Just dumb as fuck. Or purposely ignorant.
See look at Kwarks post and then look at yours again.
One of these posts is good. The other is just dumb as fuck.
|
So this is out of context in this thread but I'm reading that apparently right now since the SCOTUS has 8 justices, if there was a 4-4 split, the decision of the previous federal court would stand, and never in the history of the US has the Senate decided to be that obstructive.
It's fucking insane, some random federal appeals court or whatever gets to act as the supreme court of the US in the event of a 4-4 split. LOL!
|
On July 14 2016 04:23 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Interestingly enough, evangelical christians are supporting Trump en masse, even more than they did support Romney.
There are probably a few factors here. Romney was a Mormon, a bit of an outsider faith to some, and if memory serves Obama was pretty smart with how he wove God into his rhetoric. Also, there is nobody else you'd expect them to vote for since Ted Cruz isn't in the race. And the evangelicals could have been stunted or even shrunk in that time, meaning the ones who are left would be more committed and so more likely to support Trump already. Or because of your own bias, you're not exposed to the times Trump has communicated his message to evangelicals (like specific rallies, speeches at Christian universities). Or it could be random variance.
On July 14 2016 04:23 Biff The Understudy wrote:
I guess his private life, his wildly swinging positions of abortion, his bullyish attitude and his nastiness to immigrants and foreigners have little to do with Jesus' message, but that has never been the point.
So you took a group of people labeled "evangelical," assumed that evangelicalness would have to be their primary electoral motivation, and then got surprised that they aren't declaring support for a nonexistent candidate that would better fit your idea of their values. Obviously their goal as a group isn't to elect Jesus to the presidency. This isn't a failing on their part to act smart about, it was your own mistake, not having an open mind, to pretend to understand this demographic. They seem just to want a candidate that expresses solidarity with their identity.
|
On July 14 2016 06:05 Djzapz wrote:
So this is out of context in this thread but I'm reading that apparently right now since the SCOTUS has 8 justices, if there was a 4-4 split, the decision of the previous federal court would stand, and never in the history of the US has the Senate decided to be that obstructive.
It's fucking insane, some random federal appeals court or whatever gets to act as the supreme court of the US in the event of a 4-4 split. LOL!
The big thing is that while a 4-4 split upholds the lower courts ruling, it does not establish precedent.
But yes, having a split supreme court is bad and the Republicans are terrible for holding it up this long.
|
Federal Circuit Courts are also not "random" or in any way substantively unable to render opinions like the SC. The 4-4 just does damage to national legal coherence.
|
On July 14 2016 06:10 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2016 06:05 Djzapz wrote:
So this is out of context in this thread but I'm reading that apparently right now since the SCOTUS has 8 justices, if there was a 4-4 split, the decision of the previous federal court would stand, and never in the history of the US has the Senate decided to be that obstructive.
It's fucking insane, some random federal appeals court or whatever gets to act as the supreme court of the US in the event of a 4-4 split. LOL! The big thing is that while a 4-4 split upholds the lower courts ruling, it does not establish precedent. But yes, having a split supreme court is bad and the Republicans are terrible for holding it up this long.
Yes, if anything is just disrupts the legal process and is a disservice to the litigants bring the appeals because it any ruling will always be in doubt if there is a split. Its bad and congress should really just do their job and hold hearings. But they would rather whine about 3 emails, two of which were mislabeled.
Edit: Also what farvacola said. The circuit court is no joke and those folks make serious rulings all the time.
|
On July 14 2016 06:10 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2016 06:05 Djzapz wrote:
So this is out of context in this thread but I'm reading that apparently right now since the SCOTUS has 8 justices, if there was a 4-4 split, the decision of the previous federal court would stand, and never in the history of the US has the Senate decided to be that obstructive.
It's fucking insane, some random federal appeals court or whatever gets to act as the supreme court of the US in the event of a 4-4 split. LOL! The big thing is that while a 4-4 split upholds the lower courts ruling, it does not establish precedent. But yes, having a split supreme court is bad and the Republicans are terrible for holding it up this long.
I gotta say, whoever found out that you can just do nothing at all when you are not the ruling party, and that the US system allows you to just block everything, is a major dick.
"Yeah, we are just gonna wait for the next president to nominate someone for the supreme court". That is just son incredibly insane and weird, and i can't see why people simply accept it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
