US Politics Mega-thread - Page 6646

On January 26 2017 07:01 LegalLord wrote:

I mean, this Chicago matter has been reported for at least a week now. So this is a non-story.

On January 26 2017 07:45 FiWiFaKi wrote:


Sums up my thoughts

On January 26 2017 07:32 Mohdoo wrote:
If data shows torture works, sign me up. If data does not show that it works, we should do what works best

On January 26 2017 07:39 LegalLord wrote:
By the way, does anyone else notice the irony in that the most popular nominee of Trump's is nicknamed "mad dog?"

On January 26 2017 07:57 Thieving Magpie wrote:


Which is why step one of his administration is a gag order telling everyone they can't share data.

On January 26 2017 08:06 FiWiFaKi wrote:


I think it's one of those death penalty type things... Used with caution in specific instances.

The death penalty should only be used (imo) when there's overwhelming evidence it's that person, and they commit a massive atrocity, like an intentional mass killing, that is recorded by cameras, or there's numerous witnesses... I don't know why trials for something like this should be that expensive. Death penalties for marital issues or something, sure.

So same idea with torture, if there's a benefit to using it (and it's within the ways prescribed by the law, so for example people speaking out about the government can't be tortured), and all the costs have been weighed, then it should in principle be fine to proceed.

edit: NatParkService going rogue, that's the stuff you should do if everyone in the department wants to lose their job.

edit2: In my code of ethics handbook:

-The honesty enunciated in Rule 3 extends also to the results of one's work. It is
incumbent upon professionals to express the results of their work clearly and
accurately; to place an appropriate qualification on the results when a matter is only
partially resolved; and to avoid bias due to political, economic or other non-technical
factors. In both corporate and societal settings, professionals should focus
discussion on the facts of the issue and do their best to ensure that their
professional opinions are accurately represented. In order to avoid misinterpretation
by the audience when presenting complex issues to a non-technical audience,
professionals should simplify their discussion without losing the critical elements.

-Professionals need not be devoid of personal or political interests. Rather, they
should separate their personal views from their professional activities and be
impartial and factual when expressing professional opinions.

What a joke on their part.

On January 26 2017 08:06 FiWiFaKi wrote:


I think it's one of those death penalty type things... Used with caution in specific instances.

The death penalty should only be used (imo) when there's overwhelming evidence it's that person, and they commit a massive atrocity, like an intentional mass killing, that is recorded by cameras, or there's numerous witnesses... I don't know why trials for something like this should be that expensive. Death penalties for marital issues or something, sure.

So same idea with torture, if there's a benefit to using it (and it's within the ways prescribed by the law, so for example people speaking out about the government can't be tortured), and all the costs have been weighed, then it should in principle be fine to proceed.

edit: NatParkService going rogue, that's the stuff you should do if everyone in the department wants to lose their job.

edit2: In my code of ethics handbook:

-The honesty enunciated in Rule 3 extends also to the results of one's work. It is
incumbent upon professionals to express the results of their work clearly and
accurately; to place an appropriate qualification on the results when a matter is only
partially resolved; and to avoid bias due to political, economic or other non-technical
factors. In both corporate and societal settings, professionals should focus
discussion on the facts of the issue and do their best to ensure that their
professional opinions are accurately represented. In order to avoid misinterpretation
by the audience when presenting complex issues to a non-technical audience,
professionals should simplify their discussion without losing the critical elements.

-Professionals need not be devoid of personal or political interests. Rather, they
should separate their personal views from their professional activities and be
impartial and factual when expressing professional opinions.

What a joke on their part.

On January 26 2017 07:51 Djzapz wrote:

I mean... in what context? Any context? If we were to find out that torture "works" and could be used to thwart the next 9/11, should the US still violate international law and use torture against Jihadi Muhammed #942 who has 0 understanding of strategic information and was sent to the grinder to die like the pleb he is? Or should the use of torture be limited in theory (but obviously still used in practice)?

I don't know that I agree with the notion that the most effective and pragmatic way, regardless of morality, is always going to be the right one. Torture every motherfucker on the off chance that maybe they know something!

WASHINGTON — On Monday, President Trump gathered House and Senate leaders in the State Dining Room for a get-to-know-you reception, served them tiny meatballs and pigs-in-a-blanket, and quickly launched into a story meant to illustrate what he believes to be rampant, unchecked voter fraud.

Mr. Trump kicked off the meeting, participants said, by retelling his debunked claim that he would have won the popular vote if not for the three million to five million ballots cast by “illegals.” He followed it up with a Twitter post early Wednesday calling for a major investigation into voter fraud.

When one of the Democrats protested, Mr. Trump said he was told a story by “the very famous golfer, Bernhard Langer,” whom he described as a friend, according to three staff members who were in the room for the meeting.

In the emerging Trump era, the story was a memorable example, for the legislators and the country, of how an off-the-cuff yarn — unverifiable and of confusing origin — became a prime policy mover for a president whose fact-gathering owes more to the oral tradition than the written word.

The three witnesses recall the story this way: Mr. Langer, a 59-year-old native of Bavaria, Germany — a winner of the Masters twice and of more than 100 events on major professional golf tours around the world — was standing in line at a polling place near his home in Florida on Election Day, the president explained, when an official informed Mr. Langer he would not be able to vote.

Get the Morning Briefing by Email
What you need to know to start your day, delivered to your inbox Monday through Friday.


Enter your email address
Sign Up

Receive occasional updates and special offers for The New York Times's products and services.

SEE SAMPLE PRIVACY POLICY
Ahead of and behind Mr. Langer were voters who did not look as if they should be allowed to vote, Mr. Trump said, according to the staff members — but they were nonetheless permitted to cast provisional ballots. The president threw out the names of Latin American countries that the voters might have come from.

Mr. Langer, whom he described as a supporter, left feeling frustrated, he said.

The anecdote, the aides said, was greeted with silence, and Mr. Trump was prodded to change the subject by Reince Priebus, the White House chief of staff, and Senator John Cornyn, Republican of Texas.

Just one problem: Mr. Langer, who lives in Boca Raton, Fla., is a German citizen with permanent residence status in the United States who is, by law, barred from voting, according to Mr. Langer’s daughter Christina.

“He is a citizen of Germany,” she said, when reached on her father’s cellphone. “He is not a friend of President Trump’s, and I don’t know why he would talk about him.”

She said her father was “very busy” and would not be able to answer any questions.

But a senior White House staff member, who was not at the Monday reception but has heard Mr. Trump tell the story, said Mr. Langer saw Mr. Trump in Florida during the Thanksgiving break and told him the story of a friend of Mr. Langer’s who had been blocked from voting.

Either way, the tale left its mark on Mr. Trump, who is known to act on anecdote, and on Wednesday redoubled his efforts to build a border wall and crack down on immigrants crossing the border from Mexico.

The story, the aide added, had made a big impression on Mr. Trump.

Ahead of and behind Mr. Langer were voters who did not look as if they should be allowed to vote, Mr. Trump said, according to the staff members — but they were nonetheless permitted to cast provisional ballots. The president threw out the names of Latin American countries that the voters might have come from.

PHILADELPHIA – House Oversight Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) says he sees "no evidence" that millions of undocumented immigrants voted in the 2016 election that and his committee won't be using taxpayer dollars to investigate President Donald Trump's allegation.

Chaffetz told reporters at the congressional GOP retreat Wednesday in Philadelphia that if Trump wants an investigation, he can get the Department of Justice to look into it. He's not interested.

"On the voter fraud issue that really happens at the county level. I don't see any evidence, but the President has 100,000 people at the Department of Justice that if he wants to do an investigation, have at it. I just don't see any evidence of it," Chaffetz said.

When asked if he thought it might be a waste of time or taxpayer dollars, Chaffetz said, "That's why I'm saying the Oversight Committee is not planning to do anything with it."

During a meeting with congressional leaders earlier this week, President Trump told members of Congress that he believed he'd been denied the popular vote victory because millions of undocumented immigrants cast ballots illegally in the November election despite the fact that evidence of widespread voter fraud does not exist and has been continually disputed by studies.

Chaffetz said it's up to Trump if he wants to spend DOJ money on voter fraud investigations.

"That's his decision to make," Chaffetz said. "It's not something we're pursuing."

On January 26 2017 08:53 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Wow. Just wow. People from Latin American countries should not be allowed to vote. And Trump made it all up anyways. Jesus Christ on a stick. This man is the President of USA?

On January 26 2017 08:48 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
Guys, you do realise that torture has never worked in the entire history of torture to extract information; it's main purpose being as an act of revenge, to supress dissident populations and to force signing of confessions.

I have no sympathy for those who are actively plotting terrorist attacks against us, but it simply does not work and diminishes the standing of USA and their allies as well as providing a higher moral ground for autocratic regimes.

It's just bizarre to even suggest that torture provides information when the intended purpose of torture is not as such. In fact several released prisoners just say that they say anything and everything to reduce their torture. If it did work, you can be sure that certain US administrations would had accidently "leaked" circumstances where it was effective in order to enhance their own prestige.

On January 26 2017 08:57 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I guess we need to conduct rigorous scientific experiments, double focus groups over prolonged periods of time? Maybe even try to scientifically determine which torture yields the most effective results? I'm placing my bets on chopping off fingers followed by threatened castration. Of course no threat can be empty, so if they don't reveal the information we know they have, we have to castrate them too.



Are you guys for real? Like, OK, I get the hypothetical we just had to get the password out of this guy to stop the biologichemicalnuke attack. And the fact is, nobody is gonna make a big deal out of it if one or two guys are tortured and it saves thousands of lives. That's not what this is about though - if that hypothetical was the real scenario, torture would be used even if it wasn't allowed. And nobody would care, because thousands of lives were saved. But once torture starts being 'legally' employed, you quickly start descending a slippery slope crossing straight past a line which dehumanizes all of us and legitimizes the fuck out of anti-american sentiments. Trying to make this about 'the scientific way of extracting information the quickest' is a truly dark path to start walking.

On January 26 2017 09:18 Biff The Understudy wrote:

Absolutely.

But that's not the only thing: are you guys comfortable with the idea that your neighbours, brothers or maybe one day sons could be or become torturers? And also, would you still be proud of a country that openly tortures people?

I wonder when it happened that all those bariers that are supposed to separate us from barbarity just suddenly ceased to exist. A couple of decades ago, even emiting the idea would have been considered an obscenity and a disgrace.