|
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. |
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On December 14 2016 00:25 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2016 00:21 LegalLord wrote:
Arguably the outrage isn't about Russia at all but just about Trump winning. If it were Guccifer 2.0 as an independent agent doing everything then the reaction would be pretty analogous. Now your taking 2 separate issues and saying they are the same. Some people are outraged that Trump won. Some people are outraged that Russia hacked US officials to try to influence the election result. There is a lot of overlap between the 2 for sure but they are still separate issues.
Problem is that Group 1 masquerading as Group 2 is probably bigger that Group 2 in general.
Frankly I see two major groups of people upset at Russian hacking: people who wanted Trump to lose, and people who want a more aggressive anti-Russia policy. The actual people genuinely concerned about meddling are not that numerous.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
I actually expect Tillerson to pass confirmation. He was floated for a bit before being chosen and while the visceral reaction was unpleasant people mostly warmed up to the idea. Even John Rambo McCain has since tempered his criticism of Tillerson into saying "maybe his ties to Russia are only commercial, and that's fine."
Also, it's official by announcement.
|
On December 14 2016 00:29 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2016 00:25 Gorsameth wrote:On December 14 2016 00:21 LegalLord wrote:
Arguably the outrage isn't about Russia at all but just about Trump winning. If it were Guccifer 2.0 as an independent agent doing everything then the reaction would be pretty analogous. Now your taking 2 separate issues and saying they are the same. Some people are outraged that Trump won. Some people are outraged that Russia hacked US officials to try to influence the election result. There is a lot of overlap between the 2 for sure but they are still separate issues. Problem is that Group 1 masquerading as Group 2 is probably bigger that Group 2 in general. Frankly I see two major groups of people upset at Russian hacking: people who wanted Trump to lose, and people who want a more aggressive anti-Russia policy. The actual people genuinely concerned about meddling are not that numerous.
I'm sorry but then people are stupid (something I stated in the past aswell).
Any foreign government hacking into officials to acquire dirt to influence election results is utterly unacceptable regardless if its Russia, the Chinese or Belgium doing the hacking.
Why does everything have to be "they are anti-Russia" and can't it simply be "They don't want others hacking our officials to blackmail and influence election results"?
|
On December 14 2016 00:33 LegalLord wrote:
I actually expect Tillerson to pass confirmation. He was floated for a bit before being chosen and while the visceral reaction was unpleasant people mostly warmed up to the idea. Even John Rambo McCain has since tempered his criticism of Tillerson into saying "maybe his ties to Russia are only commercial, and that's fine."
Also, it's official by announcement.
Still, you gotta admire the balls that it takes to nominate someone with Russian ties while all of this nonsense regarding the Russian hacking is going on.
|
On December 14 2016 00:15 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2016 00:03 Danglars wrote:On December 13 2016 22:11 Acrofales wrote:On December 13 2016 21:11 Danglars wrote:On December 13 2016 18:58 TheYango wrote:
At the same time, Democrats are fucking delusional if they think they're actually going to be able to flip the outcome of the election and that people would just take it lying down. Investigation into the issue should strictly be from a "to protect future elections" perspective. There's too much shit surrounding this one already. I agree. Oh, and continued hysteria brings about some nasty parallels. The NYT, among other outlets, are trying to accomplish exactly what they're accusing Russia of trying to do. This is a bit of a weird perspective. For starters, the NYT didn't hack anything or anybody. So even if you take the stance that the NYT was trying to influence the elections and that that is the problem (hint: it isn´t), they did so through legal means. Moreover, Russia is not a newspaper, it is a foreign nation. You seem to be playing down the problems of a foreign nation explicitly trying to influence the elections through illicit means. Why? Just because your guy won? Would it have been okay if Russia had hacked the RNC (they might have) and dumped all Priebus' emails on Wikileaks (they didn't) with the explicit goal of discrediting the RNC and Trump, in order to influence people to vote for Hillary? I'm making a comparison along intentions/goals, not trying to call the NYT Russia or justify hacking. Calm down. But comparing intentions and goals without discussing method is apples and oranges. Person A wants a nice shirt and buys it from a store Person B wants a nice shirt and shoplifts it. Person A cannot be critical of Person B because both wanted a nice shirt. Horseshit. The NYT trying to change someone's opinion with articles and Russia hacking US officials and selectively releasing dirt on the candidate they want to lose are not the same thing and your comparison is strait garbage and just illustrates how weak your argument against Russia's involvement is.
Then we're lost in your sea of equivocation. And if you think I'm making an argument against Russia's involvement, you're an inventor extraordinaire. "Cannot be critical" is not what has been done, and is not what is being done. If this is all true about Russia, they're lightweights compared to the real harm the NYT article and others in that vein by acting like the election was stolen (and broadly among other outlets, the electors should factor that in, or we should've had recounts. Like original article & response it's Hillary and the Dems reneging on promises of accepting the results of the election).
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On December 14 2016 00:35 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2016 00:29 LegalLord wrote:On December 14 2016 00:25 Gorsameth wrote:On December 14 2016 00:21 LegalLord wrote:
Arguably the outrage isn't about Russia at all but just about Trump winning. If it were Guccifer 2.0 as an independent agent doing everything then the reaction would be pretty analogous. Now your taking 2 separate issues and saying they are the same. Some people are outraged that Trump won. Some people are outraged that Russia hacked US officials to try to influence the election result. There is a lot of overlap between the 2 for sure but they are still separate issues. Problem is that Group 1 masquerading as Group 2 is probably bigger that Group 2 in general. Frankly I see two major groups of people upset at Russian hacking: people who wanted Trump to lose, and people who want a more aggressive anti-Russia policy. The actual people genuinely concerned about meddling are not that numerous. I'm sorry but then people are stupid (something I stated in the past aswell). Any foreign government hacking into officials to acquire dirt to influence election results is utterly unacceptable regardless if its Russia, the Chinese or Belgium doing the hacking. Why does everything have to be "they are anti-Russia" and can't it simply be "They don't want others hacking our officials to blackmail and influence election results"?
Yes, people are stupid. I broadly agree with you there.
It's not that it has to be "they are anti-Russia" it's that it is "they are anti-Russia." If the people best known for taking a hard line towards Russia take a hard line towards Russia, am I meant to expect it's because they are truly and genuinely concerned about the hacking? Or am I right to suspect opportunism?
|
On December 14 2016 00:37 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2016 00:15 Gorsameth wrote:On December 14 2016 00:03 Danglars wrote:On December 13 2016 22:11 Acrofales wrote:On December 13 2016 21:11 Danglars wrote:On December 13 2016 18:58 TheYango wrote:
At the same time, Democrats are fucking delusional if they think they're actually going to be able to flip the outcome of the election and that people would just take it lying down. Investigation into the issue should strictly be from a "to protect future elections" perspective. There's too much shit surrounding this one already. I agree. Oh, and continued hysteria brings about some nasty parallels. The NYT, among other outlets, are trying to accomplish exactly what they're accusing Russia of trying to do. This is a bit of a weird perspective. For starters, the NYT didn't hack anything or anybody. So even if you take the stance that the NYT was trying to influence the elections and that that is the problem (hint: it isn´t), they did so through legal means. Moreover, Russia is not a newspaper, it is a foreign nation. You seem to be playing down the problems of a foreign nation explicitly trying to influence the elections through illicit means. Why? Just because your guy won? Would it have been okay if Russia had hacked the RNC (they might have) and dumped all Priebus' emails on Wikileaks (they didn't) with the explicit goal of discrediting the RNC and Trump, in order to influence people to vote for Hillary? I'm making a comparison along intentions/goals, not trying to call the NYT Russia or justify hacking. Calm down. But comparing intentions and goals without discussing method is apples and oranges. Person A wants a nice shirt and buys it from a store Person B wants a nice shirt and shoplifts it. Person A cannot be critical of Person B because both wanted a nice shirt. Horseshit. The NYT trying to change someone's opinion with articles and Russia hacking US officials and selectively releasing dirt on the candidate they want to lose are not the same thing and your comparison is strait garbage and just illustrates how weak your argument against Russia's involvement is. Then we're lost in your sea of equivocation. And if you think I'm making an argument against Russia's involvement, you're an inventor extraordinaire. "Cannot be critical" is not what has been done, and is not what is being done. If this is all true about Russia, they're lightweights compared to the real harm the NYT article and others in that vein by acting like the election was stolen (and broadly among other outlets, the electors should factor that in, or we should've had recounts. Like original article & response it's Hillary and the Dems reneging on promises of accepting the results of the election).
will you accept the claim that Trump has done great and real harm to our country, and will continue to do so?
If so, I'll accept your claim that the NYT stuff and similar is doing real harm.
|
On December 14 2016 00:39 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2016 00:35 Gorsameth wrote:On December 14 2016 00:29 LegalLord wrote:On December 14 2016 00:25 Gorsameth wrote:On December 14 2016 00:21 LegalLord wrote:
Arguably the outrage isn't about Russia at all but just about Trump winning. If it were Guccifer 2.0 as an independent agent doing everything then the reaction would be pretty analogous. Now your taking 2 separate issues and saying they are the same. Some people are outraged that Trump won. Some people are outraged that Russia hacked US officials to try to influence the election result. There is a lot of overlap between the 2 for sure but they are still separate issues. Problem is that Group 1 masquerading as Group 2 is probably bigger that Group 2 in general. Frankly I see two major groups of people upset at Russian hacking: people who wanted Trump to lose, and people who want a more aggressive anti-Russia policy. The actual people genuinely concerned about meddling are not that numerous. I'm sorry but then people are stupid (something I stated in the past aswell). Any foreign government hacking into officials to acquire dirt to influence election results is utterly unacceptable regardless if its Russia, the Chinese or Belgium doing the hacking. Why does everything have to be "they are anti-Russia" and can't it simply be "They don't want others hacking our officials to blackmail and influence election results"? Yes, people are stupid. I broadly agree with you there. It's not that it has to be "they are anti-Russia" it's that it is "they are anti-Russia." If the people best known for taking a hard line towards Russia take a hard line towards Russia, am I meant to expect it's because they are truly and genuinely concerned about the hacking? Or am I right to suspect opportunism?
The question you ask is "would this behaviour be acceptable if it was done by someone we like?"
The answer should be No. so therefore its a normal position to take, whether they are anti-Russian or not.
You don't start with "do they hate the country that did this" but with "was the action acceptable, regardless of who did it". And only after that do you look at who did it.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On December 14 2016 00:47 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2016 00:37 Danglars wrote:On December 14 2016 00:15 Gorsameth wrote:On December 14 2016 00:03 Danglars wrote:On December 13 2016 22:11 Acrofales wrote:On December 13 2016 21:11 Danglars wrote:On December 13 2016 18:58 TheYango wrote:
At the same time, Democrats are fucking delusional if they think they're actually going to be able to flip the outcome of the election and that people would just take it lying down. Investigation into the issue should strictly be from a "to protect future elections" perspective. There's too much shit surrounding this one already. I agree. Oh, and continued hysteria brings about some nasty parallels. The NYT, among other outlets, are trying to accomplish exactly what they're accusing Russia of trying to do. This is a bit of a weird perspective. For starters, the NYT didn't hack anything or anybody. So even if you take the stance that the NYT was trying to influence the elections and that that is the problem (hint: it isn´t), they did so through legal means. Moreover, Russia is not a newspaper, it is a foreign nation. You seem to be playing down the problems of a foreign nation explicitly trying to influence the elections through illicit means. Why? Just because your guy won? Would it have been okay if Russia had hacked the RNC (they might have) and dumped all Priebus' emails on Wikileaks (they didn't) with the explicit goal of discrediting the RNC and Trump, in order to influence people to vote for Hillary? I'm making a comparison along intentions/goals, not trying to call the NYT Russia or justify hacking. Calm down. But comparing intentions and goals without discussing method is apples and oranges. Person A wants a nice shirt and buys it from a store Person B wants a nice shirt and shoplifts it. Person A cannot be critical of Person B because both wanted a nice shirt. Horseshit. The NYT trying to change someone's opinion with articles and Russia hacking US officials and selectively releasing dirt on the candidate they want to lose are not the same thing and your comparison is strait garbage and just illustrates how weak your argument against Russia's involvement is. Then we're lost in your sea of equivocation. And if you think I'm making an argument against Russia's involvement, you're an inventor extraordinaire. "Cannot be critical" is not what has been done, and is not what is being done. If this is all true about Russia, they're lightweights compared to the real harm the NYT article and others in that vein by acting like the election was stolen (and broadly among other outlets, the electors should factor that in, or we should've had recounts. Like original article & response it's Hillary and the Dems reneging on promises of accepting the results of the election). will you accept the claim that Trump has done great and real harm to our country, and will continue to do so? If so, I'll accept your claim that the NYT stuff and similar is doing real harm.
And how do you define "doing harm to our country" in this context?
|
Canada11350 Posts
I suppose there is a simple hypothesis: as a society becomes more egalitarian are there greater or lesser differences in job choices between the genders? That is as the barriers of entry are brought down, is there a slow move to 50-50 across every job, or are there even more pronounced differences? Our Scandinavian posters will have to correct me, but if we assume they are among the most egalitarian societies, we find the opposite of our expectations: greater differences, not less. (Unless there are some hidden issues that we don't know about- hence our Scandinavian posters.) But supposing that find holds true, this isn't really a bad thing. If every person has the freedom to choose what they want, and it turns out that doesn't equal 50-50 in every single occupation, that's not bad, but good because they got to choose what they wanted.
|
On December 14 2016 00:49 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2016 00:47 zlefin wrote:On December 14 2016 00:37 Danglars wrote:On December 14 2016 00:15 Gorsameth wrote:On December 14 2016 00:03 Danglars wrote:On December 13 2016 22:11 Acrofales wrote:On December 13 2016 21:11 Danglars wrote:On December 13 2016 18:58 TheYango wrote:
At the same time, Democrats are fucking delusional if they think they're actually going to be able to flip the outcome of the election and that people would just take it lying down. Investigation into the issue should strictly be from a "to protect future elections" perspective. There's too much shit surrounding this one already. I agree. Oh, and continued hysteria brings about some nasty parallels. The NYT, among other outlets, are trying to accomplish exactly what they're accusing Russia of trying to do. This is a bit of a weird perspective. For starters, the NYT didn't hack anything or anybody. So even if you take the stance that the NYT was trying to influence the elections and that that is the problem (hint: it isn´t), they did so through legal means. Moreover, Russia is not a newspaper, it is a foreign nation. You seem to be playing down the problems of a foreign nation explicitly trying to influence the elections through illicit means. Why? Just because your guy won? Would it have been okay if Russia had hacked the RNC (they might have) and dumped all Priebus' emails on Wikileaks (they didn't) with the explicit goal of discrediting the RNC and Trump, in order to influence people to vote for Hillary? I'm making a comparison along intentions/goals, not trying to call the NYT Russia or justify hacking. Calm down. But comparing intentions and goals without discussing method is apples and oranges. Person A wants a nice shirt and buys it from a store Person B wants a nice shirt and shoplifts it. Person A cannot be critical of Person B because both wanted a nice shirt. Horseshit. The NYT trying to change someone's opinion with articles and Russia hacking US officials and selectively releasing dirt on the candidate they want to lose are not the same thing and your comparison is strait garbage and just illustrates how weak your argument against Russia's involvement is. Then we're lost in your sea of equivocation. And if you think I'm making an argument against Russia's involvement, you're an inventor extraordinaire. "Cannot be critical" is not what has been done, and is not what is being done. If this is all true about Russia, they're lightweights compared to the real harm the NYT article and others in that vein by acting like the election was stolen (and broadly among other outlets, the electors should factor that in, or we should've had recounts. Like original article & response it's Hillary and the Dems reneging on promises of accepting the results of the election). will you accept the claim that Trump has done great and real harm to our country, and will continue to do so? If so, I'll accept your claim that the NYT stuff and similar is doing real harm. And how do you define "doing harm to our country" in this context?
I think harm is a clear enough term to not need explanation; especially as danglars can use his own definition since I responded to his use of the term.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On December 14 2016 00:48 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2016 00:39 LegalLord wrote:On December 14 2016 00:35 Gorsameth wrote:On December 14 2016 00:29 LegalLord wrote:On December 14 2016 00:25 Gorsameth wrote:On December 14 2016 00:21 LegalLord wrote:
Arguably the outrage isn't about Russia at all but just about Trump winning. If it were Guccifer 2.0 as an independent agent doing everything then the reaction would be pretty analogous. Now your taking 2 separate issues and saying they are the same. Some people are outraged that Trump won. Some people are outraged that Russia hacked US officials to try to influence the election result. There is a lot of overlap between the 2 for sure but they are still separate issues. Problem is that Group 1 masquerading as Group 2 is probably bigger that Group 2 in general. Frankly I see two major groups of people upset at Russian hacking: people who wanted Trump to lose, and people who want a more aggressive anti-Russia policy. The actual people genuinely concerned about meddling are not that numerous. I'm sorry but then people are stupid (something I stated in the past aswell). Any foreign government hacking into officials to acquire dirt to influence election results is utterly unacceptable regardless if its Russia, the Chinese or Belgium doing the hacking. Why does everything have to be "they are anti-Russia" and can't it simply be "They don't want others hacking our officials to blackmail and influence election results"? Yes, people are stupid. I broadly agree with you there. It's not that it has to be "they are anti-Russia" it's that it is "they are anti-Russia." If the people best known for taking a hard line towards Russia take a hard line towards Russia, am I meant to expect it's because they are truly and genuinely concerned about the hacking? Or am I right to suspect opportunism? The question you ask is "would this behaviour be acceptable if it was done by someone we like?" The answer should be No. so therefore its a normal position to take, whether they are anti-Russian or not. You don't start with "do they hate the country that did this" but with "was the action acceptable, regardless of who did it". And only after that do you look at who did it.
And yet it's almost as telling who is interested in talking up the issue as who isn't. A position that is reasonable in a vacuum is suspiciously opportunistic when it's talked up mostly by the kinds of people who would benefit from the kind of policies that would be resultant, while everyone else doesn't.
I view it with about the same suspicion I do when Turkey's government blames the Kurds. Maybe they did do bad things, maybe they didn't, but I absolutely do see that the government is a goddamn broken record on the issue that is being opportunistic at every occasion whether or not the justification is genuine. John Rambo McCain is the same.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On December 14 2016 00:52 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2016 00:49 LegalLord wrote:On December 14 2016 00:47 zlefin wrote:On December 14 2016 00:37 Danglars wrote:On December 14 2016 00:15 Gorsameth wrote:On December 14 2016 00:03 Danglars wrote:On December 13 2016 22:11 Acrofales wrote:On December 13 2016 21:11 Danglars wrote:On December 13 2016 18:58 TheYango wrote:
At the same time, Democrats are fucking delusional if they think they're actually going to be able to flip the outcome of the election and that people would just take it lying down. Investigation into the issue should strictly be from a "to protect future elections" perspective. There's too much shit surrounding this one already. I agree. Oh, and continued hysteria brings about some nasty parallels. The NYT, among other outlets, are trying to accomplish exactly what they're accusing Russia of trying to do. This is a bit of a weird perspective. For starters, the NYT didn't hack anything or anybody. So even if you take the stance that the NYT was trying to influence the elections and that that is the problem (hint: it isn´t), they did so through legal means. Moreover, Russia is not a newspaper, it is a foreign nation. You seem to be playing down the problems of a foreign nation explicitly trying to influence the elections through illicit means. Why? Just because your guy won? Would it have been okay if Russia had hacked the RNC (they might have) and dumped all Priebus' emails on Wikileaks (they didn't) with the explicit goal of discrediting the RNC and Trump, in order to influence people to vote for Hillary? I'm making a comparison along intentions/goals, not trying to call the NYT Russia or justify hacking. Calm down. But comparing intentions and goals without discussing method is apples and oranges. Person A wants a nice shirt and buys it from a store Person B wants a nice shirt and shoplifts it. Person A cannot be critical of Person B because both wanted a nice shirt. Horseshit. The NYT trying to change someone's opinion with articles and Russia hacking US officials and selectively releasing dirt on the candidate they want to lose are not the same thing and your comparison is strait garbage and just illustrates how weak your argument against Russia's involvement is. Then we're lost in your sea of equivocation. And if you think I'm making an argument against Russia's involvement, you're an inventor extraordinaire. "Cannot be critical" is not what has been done, and is not what is being done. If this is all true about Russia, they're lightweights compared to the real harm the NYT article and others in that vein by acting like the election was stolen (and broadly among other outlets, the electors should factor that in, or we should've had recounts. Like original article & response it's Hillary and the Dems reneging on promises of accepting the results of the election). will you accept the claim that Trump has done great and real harm to our country, and will continue to do so? If so, I'll accept your claim that the NYT stuff and similar is doing real harm. And how do you define "doing harm to our country" in this context? I think harm is a clear enough term to not need explanation; especially as danglars can use his own definition since I responded to his use of the term.
Fantastic. So you use an ambiguous definition of "doing harm" and you fail to define what you mean. And so it could arbitrarily be true or false because there is no standard by which that can be evaluated.
Give a definition of what you mean by "doing harm" because there is no clear context by which that is true. Otherwise the response is simply that no, he isn't doing harm, he is merely making America great again. And the definition of that is clear enough to need no explanation.
|
On December 14 2016 00:50 Falling wrote:
I suppose there is a simple hypothesis: as a society becomes more egalitarian are there greater or lesser differences in job choices between the genders? That is as the barriers of entry are brought down, is there a slow move to 50-50 across every job, or are there even more pronounced differences? Our Scandinavian posters will have to correct me, but if we assume they are among the most egalitarian societies, we find the opposite of our expectations: greater differences, not less. (Unless there are some hidden issues that we don't know about- hence our Scandinavian posters.) But supposing that find holds true, this isn't really a bad thing. If every person has the freedom to choose what they want, and it turns out that doesn't equal 50-50 in every single occupation, that's not bad, but good because they got to choose what they wanted.
There are some people that will target 50 / 50 no matter what. They will argue bias in society in the way people were raised and their environment explains why the genders chose what they chose.
This is the rabbit hole of social sciences and trying to hit a specific target. Some people dont even want to acknowledge gender/sex at all
|
On December 13 2016 23:50 sharkie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2016 23:39 MyTHicaL wrote:
Except for the gender pay gap statistics.
I don't understand Trump's appointments or how they can be accepted. A secretary of energy who claims that the scientific community is divided on the issue of global warming, a labour secretary who doesn't believe in workers rights and now a man with no experience outside the business world with clear ties to Russia being appointed to secretary of state? I get that the electoral college voted Trump in, he lost the popular vote but won the overall one. However it isn't like he had a shadow office set up to show people who else they would be electing with him.. Is there no way to fight any of these appointments? -Honest question Most gender pay gap statistic don't compare the same work with same qualifications, same responsibilities, same hours. At least that's the case here in Austria. Our media compares 20h female hairdress with a 38h male software engineer (stark example but it is practically true) and then cry gender inequality. I have yet to find a working place where I earned more than a woman (when we held the same position).
There's been a study about the gender pay gap which concludes that the actualy pay gap adjusted for education etc. is only 4.8 - 7.1% and that gap can still be explained by other things than discrimination against women. If the pay gap due to discrimination against women exists at all it is small. In The Netherlands young women (under 30) actually make more than men. That's entirely due to education though so no problem with that. So yeah women getting paid less for the same work is a myth.
https://web.archive.org/web/20131008051216/http://www.consad.com/content/reports/Gender Wage Gap Final Report.pdf
|
On December 14 2016 00:57 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2016 00:52 zlefin wrote:On December 14 2016 00:49 LegalLord wrote:On December 14 2016 00:47 zlefin wrote:On December 14 2016 00:37 Danglars wrote:On December 14 2016 00:15 Gorsameth wrote:On December 14 2016 00:03 Danglars wrote:On December 13 2016 22:11 Acrofales wrote:On December 13 2016 21:11 Danglars wrote:On December 13 2016 18:58 TheYango wrote:
At the same time, Democrats are fucking delusional if they think they're actually going to be able to flip the outcome of the election and that people would just take it lying down. Investigation into the issue should strictly be from a "to protect future elections" perspective. There's too much shit surrounding this one already. I agree. Oh, and continued hysteria brings about some nasty parallels. The NYT, among other outlets, are trying to accomplish exactly what they're accusing Russia of trying to do. This is a bit of a weird perspective. For starters, the NYT didn't hack anything or anybody. So even if you take the stance that the NYT was trying to influence the elections and that that is the problem (hint: it isn´t), they did so through legal means. Moreover, Russia is not a newspaper, it is a foreign nation. You seem to be playing down the problems of a foreign nation explicitly trying to influence the elections through illicit means. Why? Just because your guy won? Would it have been okay if Russia had hacked the RNC (they might have) and dumped all Priebus' emails on Wikileaks (they didn't) with the explicit goal of discrediting the RNC and Trump, in order to influence people to vote for Hillary? I'm making a comparison along intentions/goals, not trying to call the NYT Russia or justify hacking. Calm down. But comparing intentions and goals without discussing method is apples and oranges. Person A wants a nice shirt and buys it from a store Person B wants a nice shirt and shoplifts it. Person A cannot be critical of Person B because both wanted a nice shirt. Horseshit. The NYT trying to change someone's opinion with articles and Russia hacking US officials and selectively releasing dirt on the candidate they want to lose are not the same thing and your comparison is strait garbage and just illustrates how weak your argument against Russia's involvement is. Then we're lost in your sea of equivocation. And if you think I'm making an argument against Russia's involvement, you're an inventor extraordinaire. "Cannot be critical" is not what has been done, and is not what is being done. If this is all true about Russia, they're lightweights compared to the real harm the NYT article and others in that vein by acting like the election was stolen (and broadly among other outlets, the electors should factor that in, or we should've had recounts. Like original article & response it's Hillary and the Dems reneging on promises of accepting the results of the election). will you accept the claim that Trump has done great and real harm to our country, and will continue to do so? If so, I'll accept your claim that the NYT stuff and similar is doing real harm. And how do you define "doing harm to our country" in this context? I think harm is a clear enough term to not need explanation; especially as danglars can use his own definition since I responded to his use of the term. Fantastic. So you use an ambiguous definition of "doing harm" and you fail to define what you mean. And so it could arbitrarily be true or false because there is no standard by which that can be evaluated. Give a definition of what you mean by "doing harm" because there is no clear context by which that is true. Otherwise the response is simply that no, he isn't doing harm, he is merely making America great again. And the definition of that is clear enough to need no explanation.
what I'm hearing is: you uselessly interject into someone else's conversation to quibble about their word choice, in a way that's not helpful to the question they asked or the larger discussion. You also ignore my clear point about definitions which leaves danglars with something he can use very easily; namely my already explicitly stated point that Danglars can use his OWN definition when answering the question.
|
On December 14 2016 00:16 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2016 23:39 MyTHicaL wrote:
Except for the gender pay gap statistics.
I don't understand Trump's appointments or how they can be accepted. A secretary of energy who claims that the scientific community is divided on the issue of global warming, a labour secretary who doesn't believe in workers rights and now a man with no experience outside the business world with clear ties to Russia being appointed to secretary of state? I get that the electoral college voted Trump in, he lost the popular vote but won the overall one. However it isn't like he had a shadow office set up to show people who else they would be electing with him.. Is there no way to fight any of these appointments? -Honest question cabinet appointments have to be approved by the Senate. Presidents are generally given a lot of leeway on them, especially for the ones at the start, but that leeway does have limits. I suspect a couple of trump's won't be approved.
Ahhh OK. I guess that makes some sense. There is still some hope that they will appoint someone else for energy then.. Some. Odd how human contributed global warming is universally accepted everywhere else ;o.
|
On December 14 2016 01:02 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2016 00:57 LegalLord wrote:On December 14 2016 00:52 zlefin wrote:On December 14 2016 00:49 LegalLord wrote:On December 14 2016 00:47 zlefin wrote:On December 14 2016 00:37 Danglars wrote:On December 14 2016 00:15 Gorsameth wrote:On December 14 2016 00:03 Danglars wrote:On December 13 2016 22:11 Acrofales wrote:On December 13 2016 21:11 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
I agree. Oh, and continued hysteria brings about some nasty parallels. The NYT, among other outlets, are trying to accomplish exactly what they're accusing Russia of trying to do. This is a bit of a weird perspective. For starters, the NYT didn't hack anything or anybody. So even if you take the stance that the NYT was trying to influence the elections and that that is the problem (hint: it isn´t), they did so through legal means. Moreover, Russia is not a newspaper, it is a foreign nation. You seem to be playing down the problems of a foreign nation explicitly trying to influence the elections through illicit means. Why? Just because your guy won? Would it have been okay if Russia had hacked the RNC (they might have) and dumped all Priebus' emails on Wikileaks (they didn't) with the explicit goal of discrediting the RNC and Trump, in order to influence people to vote for Hillary? I'm making a comparison along intentions/goals, not trying to call the NYT Russia or justify hacking. Calm down. But comparing intentions and goals without discussing method is apples and oranges. Person A wants a nice shirt and buys it from a store Person B wants a nice shirt and shoplifts it. Person A cannot be critical of Person B because both wanted a nice shirt. Horseshit. The NYT trying to change someone's opinion with articles and Russia hacking US officials and selectively releasing dirt on the candidate they want to lose are not the same thing and your comparison is strait garbage and just illustrates how weak your argument against Russia's involvement is. Then we're lost in your sea of equivocation. And if you think I'm making an argument against Russia's involvement, you're an inventor extraordinaire. "Cannot be critical" is not what has been done, and is not what is being done. If this is all true about Russia, they're lightweights compared to the real harm the NYT article and others in that vein by acting like the election was stolen (and broadly among other outlets, the electors should factor that in, or we should've had recounts. Like original article & response it's Hillary and the Dems reneging on promises of accepting the results of the election). will you accept the claim that Trump has done great and real harm to our country, and will continue to do so? If so, I'll accept your claim that the NYT stuff and similar is doing real harm. And how do you define "doing harm to our country" in this context? I think harm is a clear enough term to not need explanation; especially as danglars can use his own definition since I responded to his use of the term. Fantastic. So you use an ambiguous definition of "doing harm" and you fail to define what you mean. And so it could arbitrarily be true or false because there is no standard by which that can be evaluated. Give a definition of what you mean by "doing harm" because there is no clear context by which that is true. Otherwise the response is simply that no, he isn't doing harm, he is merely making America great again. And the definition of that is clear enough to need no explanation. what I'm hearing is: you uselessly interject into someone else's conversation to quibble about their word choice, in a way that's not helpful to the question they asked or the larger discussion. You also ignore my clear point about definitions which leaves danglars with something he can use very easily; namely my already explicitly stated point that Danglars can use his OWN definition when answering the question.
I'm just as lost. I gotta know if this is different from just the usual partisan throwaways. If it's disagreements about what policies would make America Great Again, then we might as well wait for another current event to bring up the great policy debate once more. Harm makes no legitimate amorphous corollary.
I think he might harm America through populist policies I disagree with ... for thinking they will harm not help America. But you say has done and lasting effects, which is a lot for someone that has never held elected office. I can say if he paid or struck a deal for the help of Russian hackers, he's done lasting harm, but we don't know that yet.
|
Pretty sure it's not a good thing that Russia did various hackings, it's an act of confrontation by them, and we should retaliate. As a country there should really be a baseline of agreement here. This was a hostile act against the US by Russia. Unfortunately Trump is not even at this baseline, but only out of personal pride that he doesn't want any perception that his victory wasn't legitimate.
|
On December 14 2016 01:06 MyTHicaL wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2016 00:16 zlefin wrote:On December 13 2016 23:39 MyTHicaL wrote:
Except for the gender pay gap statistics.
I don't understand Trump's appointments or how they can be accepted. A secretary of energy who claims that the scientific community is divided on the issue of global warming, a labour secretary who doesn't believe in workers rights and now a man with no experience outside the business world with clear ties to Russia being appointed to secretary of state? I get that the electoral college voted Trump in, he lost the popular vote but won the overall one. However it isn't like he had a shadow office set up to show people who else they would be electing with him.. Is there no way to fight any of these appointments? -Honest question cabinet appointments have to be approved by the Senate. Presidents are generally given a lot of leeway on them, especially for the ones at the start, but that leeway does have limits. I suspect a couple of trump's won't be approved. Ahhh OK. I guess that makes some sense. There is still some hope that they will appoint someone else for energy then.. Some. Odd how human contributed global warming is universally accepted everywhere else ;o.
US has had fights between the political right and science for a long time.
the US also tends to be more right-wing compared to most of the rest of the first-world; and some of the rest of the first-world doesn't have much in terms of major energy companies, especially locally ones, which would benefit from ignoring the externality.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
