• Log InLog In
  • Register
Liquid`
Team Liquid Liquipedia
EDT 01:46
CEST 07:46
KST 14:46
  • Home
  • Forum
  • Calendar
  • Streams
  • Liquipedia
  • Features
  • Store
  • EPT
  • TL+
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Smash
  • Heroes
  • Counter-Strike
  • Overwatch
  • Liquibet
  • Fantasy StarCraft
  • TLPD
  • StarCraft 2
  • Brood War
  • Blogs
Forum Sidebar
Events/Features
News
Featured News
Power Rank - Esports World Cup 202561RSL Season 1 - Final Week9[ASL19] Finals Recap: Standing Tall15HomeStory Cup 27 - Info & Preview18Classic wins Code S Season 2 (2025)16
Community News
BSL Team Wars - Bonyth, Dewalt, Hawk & Sziky teams10Weekly Cups (July 14-20): Final Check-up0Esports World Cup 2025 - Brackets Revealed19Weekly Cups (July 7-13): Classic continues to roll8Team TLMC #5 - Submission re-extension5
StarCraft 2
General
#1: Maru - Greatest Players of All Time The GOAT ranking of GOAT rankings Server Blocker Team TLMC #5 - Submission re-extension Greatest Players of All Time: 2025 Update
Tourneys
Esports World Cup 2025 FEL Cracov 2025 (July 27) - $8000 live event Sparkling Tuna Cup - Weekly Open Tournament Master Swan Open (Global Bronze-Master 2) Sea Duckling Open (Global, Bronze-Diamond)
Strategy
How did i lose this ZvP, whats the proper response
Custom Maps
External Content
Mutation #239 Bad Weather Mutation # 483 Kill Bot Wars Mutation # 482 Wheel of Misfortune Mutation # 481 Fear and Lava
Brood War
General
BGH Auto Balance -> http://bghmmr.eu/ Ginuda's JaeDong Interview Series [Update] ShieldBattery: 2025 Redesign BW General Discussion Dewalt's Show Matches in China
Tourneys
[Megathread] Daily Proleagues [BSL20] Non-Korean Championship 4x BSL + 4x China CSL Xiamen International Invitational [CSLPRO] It's CSLAN Season! - Last Chance
Strategy
[G] Mineral Boosting Does 1 second matter in StarCraft? Simple Questions, Simple Answers
Other Games
General Games
Stormgate/Frost Giant Megathread Total Annihilation Server - TAForever Nintendo Switch Thread [MMORPG] Tree of Savior (Successor of Ragnarok) Path of Exile
Dota 2
Official 'what is Dota anymore' discussion
League of Legends
Heroes of the Storm
Simple Questions, Simple Answers Heroes of the Storm 2.0
Hearthstone
Heroes of StarCraft mini-set
TL Mafia
TL Mafia Community Thread Vanilla Mini Mafia
Community
General
Stop Killing Games - European Citizens Initiative Things Aren’t Peaceful in Palestine Russo-Ukrainian War Thread US Politics Mega-thread Post Pic of your Favorite Food!
Fan Clubs
INnoVation Fan Club SKT1 Classic Fan Club!
Media & Entertainment
[\m/] Heavy Metal Thread Anime Discussion Thread Movie Discussion! [Manga] One Piece Korean Music Discussion
Sports
Formula 1 Discussion 2024 - 2025 Football Thread TeamLiquid Health and Fitness Initiative For 2023 NBA General Discussion
World Cup 2022
Tech Support
Installation of Windows 10 suck at "just a moment" Computer Build, Upgrade & Buying Resource Thread
TL Community
TeamLiquid Team Shirt On Sale The Automated Ban List
Blogs
Ping To Win? Pings And Their…
TrAiDoS
momentary artworks from des…
tankgirl
from making sc maps to makin…
Husyelt
StarCraft improvement
iopq
Socialism Anyone?
GreenHorizons
Eight Anniversary as a TL…
Mizenhauer
Customize Sidebar...

Website Feedback

Closed Threads



Active: 628 users

US Politics Mega-thread - Page 8142

Forum Index > Closed
Post a Reply
Prev 1 8140 8141 8142 8143 8144 10093 Next
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.
IyMoon
Profile Joined April 2016
United States1249 Posts
July 20 2017 17:20 GMT
#162821
On July 21 2017 02:18 Acrofales wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 21 2017 02:07 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
The U.S. Navy recently test fired the world’s first operational and deployed laser weapons from a warship in the Persian Gulf. According to CNN, the world’s first active laser weapons system was fired from the Austin-class amphibious transport dock USS Ponce. The laser successfully destroyed an unnamed aerial vehicle (UAV) and moving surface targets.

The new weapon releases photons—elementary particles which transmit light—at the speed of light silently hitting their target and burning it to a temperature of thousands of degrees. Unlike depicted in movies such as Star Wars, the laser beam, essentially a narrow beam of focused light, is entirely invisible.

“It operates in an invisible part of the electromagnetic spectrum so you don’t see the beam, it doesn’t make any sound, it’s completely silent and it’s incredibly effective at what it does,” Lieutenant Cale Hughes, the laser weapons system officer aboard the USS Ponce told CNN.

Lasers are primarily intended for short-range defense (one to five miles) against aircraft, drones, and small boats. Second-generation laser weapons systems are currently under development intended to take on faster targets such as incoming ballistic missiles.

During previous tests, lasers have taken out cruise missiles, mortars and other projectiles, according to the U.S. Department of Defense.

The $40 million weapons system requires a crew of three and a supply of electricity (generated from its own small generator) to operate. The 30-kilowatt, laser weapon, installed aboard the USS Ponce already in 2014, is extremely accurate and can be scaled depending on the target.

“I can aim that at any particular spot on a target, and disable and destroy as necessary,” said the commanding officer of the USS Ponce, Captain Christopher Wells. “It reduces collateral damage — I no longer have to worry about rounds that may go beyond the target and potentially hurt or damage things that I don’t want to hurt or damage.”

“It is more precise than a bullet,” Wells added. “It’s not a niche weapon system like some other weapons that we have throughout the military where it’s only good against air contacts, or it’s only good against surface targets, or it’s only good against, you know, ground-based targets — in this case this is a very versatile weapon, it can be used against a variety of targets.”

Unlike a traditional gun, a laser never runs out of bullets given that it has an infinite magazine as long as it is connected to a power source. Furthermore, in comparison to missile-based defensive systems firing a laser is cheap. “It’s about a dollar a shot,” according to Hughes. The SM-6, the U.S. Navy’s latest missile interceptor designed to engage the most advanced anti-ship cruise missiles, comes in at around $4 million per shot.

The downside of laser weapons systems is that they consume a lot of energy on the one hand, and that they have difficulties penetrating dust, haze, and smoke on the other hand, which makes it difficult to effectively operate them under adverse weather conditions. Possible counter-measure against laser weapons include fitting aircraft, boats and drones, with anti-laser coating or laser-deflecting mirrors. It should also be noted that an international agreement prohibits the targeting of human beings with laser weapons of any type.


Source


I particularly liked this bit:
Show nested quote +
The new weapon releases photons—elementary particles which transmit light—at the speed of light

Just in case the reader thought light normally travels at the speed of sound?

Anyway, yeah. It firing at the speed of light, and straight independent on wind, is a huge advantage over traditional weapons, makes targeting a hell of a lot easier.


The only problem is that it is dependent on weather at the moment (cloudy days are a bad day for ships with this weapon)

Side note, I am sad that make no noise. Is it not a law in America that all laser weapons must go pew pew? Is it not? Who do I write in order to fix this?
Something witty
Simberto
Profile Blog Joined July 2010
Germany11507 Posts
July 20 2017 17:22 GMT
#162822
On July 21 2017 02:18 Acrofales wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 21 2017 02:07 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
The U.S. Navy recently test fired the world’s first operational and deployed laser weapons from a warship in the Persian Gulf. According to CNN, the world’s first active laser weapons system was fired from the Austin-class amphibious transport dock USS Ponce. The laser successfully destroyed an unnamed aerial vehicle (UAV) and moving surface targets.

The new weapon releases photons—elementary particles which transmit light—at the speed of light silently hitting their target and burning it to a temperature of thousands of degrees. Unlike depicted in movies such as Star Wars, the laser beam, essentially a narrow beam of focused light, is entirely invisible.

“It operates in an invisible part of the electromagnetic spectrum so you don’t see the beam, it doesn’t make any sound, it’s completely silent and it’s incredibly effective at what it does,” Lieutenant Cale Hughes, the laser weapons system officer aboard the USS Ponce told CNN.

Lasers are primarily intended for short-range defense (one to five miles) against aircraft, drones, and small boats. Second-generation laser weapons systems are currently under development intended to take on faster targets such as incoming ballistic missiles.

During previous tests, lasers have taken out cruise missiles, mortars and other projectiles, according to the U.S. Department of Defense.

The $40 million weapons system requires a crew of three and a supply of electricity (generated from its own small generator) to operate. The 30-kilowatt, laser weapon, installed aboard the USS Ponce already in 2014, is extremely accurate and can be scaled depending on the target.

“I can aim that at any particular spot on a target, and disable and destroy as necessary,” said the commanding officer of the USS Ponce, Captain Christopher Wells. “It reduces collateral damage — I no longer have to worry about rounds that may go beyond the target and potentially hurt or damage things that I don’t want to hurt or damage.”

“It is more precise than a bullet,” Wells added. “It’s not a niche weapon system like some other weapons that we have throughout the military where it’s only good against air contacts, or it’s only good against surface targets, or it’s only good against, you know, ground-based targets — in this case this is a very versatile weapon, it can be used against a variety of targets.”

Unlike a traditional gun, a laser never runs out of bullets given that it has an infinite magazine as long as it is connected to a power source. Furthermore, in comparison to missile-based defensive systems firing a laser is cheap. “It’s about a dollar a shot,” according to Hughes. The SM-6, the U.S. Navy’s latest missile interceptor designed to engage the most advanced anti-ship cruise missiles, comes in at around $4 million per shot.

The downside of laser weapons systems is that they consume a lot of energy on the one hand, and that they have difficulties penetrating dust, haze, and smoke on the other hand, which makes it difficult to effectively operate them under adverse weather conditions. Possible counter-measure against laser weapons include fitting aircraft, boats and drones, with anti-laser coating or laser-deflecting mirrors. It should also be noted that an international agreement prohibits the targeting of human beings with laser weapons of any type.


Source


I particularly liked this bit:
Show nested quote +
The new weapon releases photons—elementary particles which transmit light—at the speed of light

Just in case the reader thought light normally travels at the speed of sound?

Anyway, yeah. It firing at the speed of light, and straight independent on wind, is a huge advantage over traditional weapons, makes targeting a hell of a lot easier.


I wanted to quote the same sentence. You could have the said the exact same by saying : "It shoots light".
zlefin
Profile Blog Joined October 2012
United States7689 Posts
July 20 2017 17:24 GMT
#162823
On July 21 2017 02:13 Kickboxer wrote:
I don't understand why there needs to be a bar for free speech. I don't see any benefit for that on the level of the complete society, in no situation. Even if someone advocates genocide or whatever, you send your smartest people in there and calmly defeat them in a public debate, then post it on youtube so the general population can understand why they are wrong. Should be especially easy if their views are preposterous.

Yelling at people for speaking their own version of truth makes no sense. They will only hate you more and vice versa.

what kind of bars are you talking about? there are many different degrees and potential bars. i'm not sure who you're repsonding to, there's lots of related discussion, I'm just not sure which particular person/incident/law you're responding to, so it's hard to respond back.

also, you're ignoring hte reality that public debate does not convince people that well. many people are objectively wrong but will continue to believe something anyways, no matter how much the evidence is shown to them. rational rigorous debate does not actually convince most people of much.
Great read: http://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-2016-general-election/ great book on democracy: http://press.princeton.edu/titles/10671.html zlefin is grumpier due to long term illness. Ignoring some users.
Plansix
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States60190 Posts
Last Edited: 2017-07-20 17:29:15
July 20 2017 17:27 GMT
#162824
On July 21 2017 02:17 IyMoon wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 21 2017 02:13 Kickboxer wrote:
I don't understand why there needs to be a bar for free speech. I don't see any benefit for that on the level of the complete society, in no situation. Even if someone advocates genocide or whatever, you send your smartest people in there and calmly defeat them in a public debate, then post it on youtube so the general population can understand why they are wrong. Should be especially easy if their views are preposterous.

Yelling at people for speaking their own version of truth makes no sense. They will only hate you more and vice versa.



Yeah, that does not work.

If someone is arguing for your death you are not going to sit there and argue back. You do not get in a fight where if you win the other guy looks like an idiot but if they win YOU FUCKING DIE!

There are some things that are not and should never be allowed to be said. Fuck anyone who advocates for genocide and you do not stand up to those people with words. You stand up to them with force.


Especially when it comes to genocide and other terrible practices. Public debate is not the venue that wins that argument. There is overwhelming historical evidence that polite, non-violent resistance and hoping better ideas will prevail does little to prevent mass murder. In some cases, engaging in the public debate is harmful to the cause because it gives the genocide advocate(FYI: they never directly advocate for mass murder) a venue. From history, the standard response to these events is always "we should have fought back earlier".
I have the Honor to be your Obedient Servant, P.6
TL+ Member
LegalLord
Profile Blog Joined April 2013
United Kingdom13775 Posts
July 20 2017 17:55 GMT
#162825
I sure hope no government organization was foolish enough to give money to that hypeloop project without doing due diligence.

Who am I kidding, Trump probably thinks defrauding the taxpayers would be capitalism just doing its job.
History will sooner or later sweep the European Union away without mercy.
Danglars
Profile Blog Joined August 2010
United States12133 Posts
July 20 2017 17:57 GMT
#162826



I link this since Buckyman made the same point on earlier CBO scorings. If you don't make people buy something they don't want to purchase, they'll still have access to coverage but get counted in "lose coverage." No, idiots, they didn't want it in the first place. I say this even for people that think the nanny state should make it its job to force people into good decisions.
Great armies come from happy zealots, and happy zealots come from California!
TL+ Member
KwarK
Profile Blog Joined July 2006
United States42654 Posts
July 20 2017 17:58 GMT
#162827
On July 21 2017 02:13 Kickboxer wrote:
I don't understand why there needs to be a bar for free speech. I don't see any benefit for that on the level of the complete society, in no situation. Even if someone advocates genocide or whatever, you send your smartest people in there and calmly defeat them in a public debate, then post it on youtube so the general population can understand why they are wrong. Should be especially easy if their views are preposterous.

Yelling at people for speaking their own version of truth makes no sense. They will only hate you more and vice versa.

Thus explaining why there are no Holocaust deniers anymore. Someone posted a youtube video showing how ridiculous and absurd their beliefs are and they all got together, watched the youtube video and thought "wow, that guy made some good points about the Jews" and the problem was solved forever.
ModeratorThe angels have the phone box
On_Slaught
Profile Joined August 2008
United States12190 Posts
July 20 2017 18:00 GMT
#162828
On July 21 2017 02:57 Danglars wrote:
https://twitter.com/kerpen/status/888084167937884162
https://twitter.com/kerpen/status/888087204433731585

I link this since Buckyman made the same point on earlier CBO scorings. If you don't make people buy something they don't want to purchase, they'll still have access to coverage but get counted in "lose coverage." No, idiots, they didn't want it in the first place. I say this even for people that think the nanny state should make it its job to force people into good decisions.


Completely misses the point. Those are still millions less people paying into the pot, which means it becomes untenable to cover those with pre-existing conditions. We've had this discussion multiple times.
CatharsisUT
Profile Joined March 2011
United States487 Posts
July 20 2017 18:05 GMT
#162829
You also end up paying for many of them when they show up at the ER after an unexpected accident/illness. Then the public has still paid the cost of the care, but you also get a personal bankruptcy to go along with it.
thePunGun
Profile Blog Joined January 2016
598 Posts
Last Edited: 2017-07-20 18:12:52
July 20 2017 18:12 GMT
#162830
On July 21 2017 02:13 Kickboxer wrote:
I don't understand why there needs to be a bar for free speech. I don't see any benefit for that on the level of the complete society, in no situation. Even if someone advocates genocide or whatever, you send your smartest people in there and calmly defeat them in a public debate, then post it on youtube so the general population can understand why they are wrong. Should be especially easy if their views are preposterous.

Yelling at people for speaking their own version of truth makes no sense. They will only hate you more and vice versa.


I think the quote in my signature explains pretty well, why your point is nonsense and does not apply to any real-world scenario.
"You cannot teach a man anything, you can only help him find it within himself."
Plansix
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States60190 Posts
July 20 2017 18:20 GMT
#162831
On July 21 2017 03:12 thePunGun wrote:
Show nested quote +
On July 21 2017 02:13 Kickboxer wrote:
I don't understand why there needs to be a bar for free speech. I don't see any benefit for that on the level of the complete society, in no situation. Even if someone advocates genocide or whatever, you send your smartest people in there and calmly defeat them in a public debate, then post it on youtube so the general population can understand why they are wrong. Should be especially easy if their views are preposterous.

Yelling at people for speaking their own version of truth makes no sense. They will only hate you more and vice versa.


I think the quote in my signature explains pretty well, why your point is nonsense and does not apply to any real-world scenario.

My personal favor is “Never argue with a drunk or a fool,” with its earthy common sense and likening the “fool” to someone who’s basic judgment is impaired.
I have the Honor to be your Obedient Servant, P.6
TL+ Member
TheTenthDoc
Profile Blog Joined February 2011
United States9561 Posts
Last Edited: 2017-07-20 18:31:04
July 20 2017 18:30 GMT
#162832
The CBO numbers weren't what killed the bill anyway (the Medicaid cuts and the GOP's absurd promises to the people on the right in their party did that), so I don't mind that they're calculating how many fewer people have coverage by taking the number who would have coverage if the bill passes and subtracting the number who would have coverage if it doesn't pass.

I'd blame the GOP for completely losing the messaging battle (for one of the first times recently) if it had been relevant, not the CBO.

Plus, the bill is dead, and just repealing is dead, so who even cares?
mozoku
Profile Joined September 2012
United States708 Posts
Last Edited: 2017-07-20 18:37:10
July 20 2017 18:35 GMT
#162833
While I agree that public debate is poor venue to change the public's mind in most cases, isn't there some fundamental hypocrisy in this argument? "Public debate isn't the venue that wins genocide debates, but it can be reliably used to settle healthcare, national defense, financial regulation issues, and everything else our government does ."

If you agree that that statement is ridiculous, it seems like a weirdly selective use of the "public debate is ineffective" principle to only apply it to advocate for the universities condoning violent hate speech protests.

I have a lot less sympathy for the "security is expensive" argument from universities than you guys do. How often do these controversial speakers come around? Once a year maybe? That's hardly a dent in a university budget. If the universities feel they deserve their tax-free endowments and all other kinds of government aid for being an educational non-profit, then they actually need to pay all of the associated costs of education (i.e. promoting the freedom to express ideas).
Wulfey_LA
Profile Joined April 2017
932 Posts
Last Edited: 2017-07-20 18:45:41
July 20 2017 18:45 GMT
#162834
Check out the President of the United State's deep understanding of how health insurance works. The man is a dangerous imbecile who has health insurance confused with term life insurance. If you still defend him, that makes you as dumb as he is.

As they get something, it gets tougher. Because politically, you can’t give it away. So preexisting conditions are a tough deal. Because you are basically saying from the moment the insurance, you’re 21 years old, you start working and you’re paying $12 a year for insurance, and by the time you’re 70, you get a nice plan. Here’s something where you walk up and say, “I want my insurance.” It’s a very tough deal, but it is something that we’re doing a good job of.
(NYT interview this week)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/07/20/what-was-trump-talking-about-with-12-a-year-health-insurance/?utm_term=.ed05321922a7

[W]e’re putting in $8bn [to a high-risk coverage pool] and you’re going to have absolute coverage. You’re going to have absolute guaranteed coverage. You’re going to have it if you’re a person going in … don’t forget, this was not supposed to be the way insurance works. Insurance is, you’re 20 years old, you just graduated from college, and you start paying $15 a month for the rest of your life and by the time you’re 70, and you really need it, you’re still paying the same amount and that’s really insurance.
(Economist interview in May)

https://www.economist.com/Trumptranscript


zlefin
Profile Blog Joined October 2012
United States7689 Posts
July 20 2017 18:49 GMT
#162835
On July 21 2017 03:35 mozoku wrote:
While I agree that public debate is poor venue to change the public's mind in most cases, isn't there some fundamental hypocrisy in this argument? "Public debate isn't the venue that wins genocide debates, but it can be reliably used to settle healthcare, national defense, financial regulation issues, and everything else our government does ."

If you agree that that statement is ridiculous, it seems like a weirdly selective use of the "public debate is ineffective" principle to only apply it to advocate for the universities condoning violent hate speech protests.

I have a lot less sympathy for the "security is expensive" argument from universities than you guys do. How often do these controversial speakers come around? Once a year maybe? That's hardly a dent in a university budget. If the universities feel they deserve their tax-free endowments and all other kinds of government aid for being an educational non-profit, then they actually need to pay all of the associated costs of education (i.e. promoting the freedom to express ideas).

public debate has also been factually proven to do a poor job at settling healthcare, national defense, and pretty much all the other issues. not that we have a vastly better system to offer at this time; but it's pretty clear that people are idiots, and their votes show a lack of understanding in general. not that you can blame them; some problems are complicated, and you can't expect most people to be able to have a useful opinion on them. public debate is more aboutj getting social buy-in than about actually establishing anything as true or figuring out what the best policy is.

if the controversial speakers had something useful to say; I'd care more about protecting them, a lot of them are just assholes looking to rile people up, rather than people trying to have a seroius, thoughtful, and rigorous debate.
Also not fond of spending piles of cash unless it's for a speaker of serious import and prestige. tens of thousands of dollars may not be huge, but it's not chump change either; there's a lot you can do with money like that.
Great read: http://shorensteincenter.org/news-coverage-2016-general-election/ great book on democracy: http://press.princeton.edu/titles/10671.html zlefin is grumpier due to long term illness. Ignoring some users.
Plansix
Profile Blog Joined April 2011
United States60190 Posts
July 20 2017 18:53 GMT
#162836
On July 21 2017 03:35 mozoku wrote:
While I agree that public debate is poor venue to change the public's mind in most cases, isn't there some fundamental hypocrisy in this argument? "Public debate isn't the venue that wins genocide debates, but it can be reliably used to settle healthcare, national defense, financial regulation issues, and everything else our government does ."

If you agree that that statement is ridiculous, it seems like a weirdly selective use of the "public debate is ineffective" principle to only apply it to advocate for the universities condoning violent hate speech protests.

I have a lot less sympathy for the "security is expensive" argument from universities than you guys do. How often do these controversial speakers come around? Once a year maybe? That's hardly a dent in a university budget. If the universities feel they deserve their tax-free endowments and all other kinds of government aid for being an educational non-profit, then they actually need to pay all of the associated costs of education (i.e. promoting the freedom to express ideas).

Debates in good faith have merit and can be powerful tools to share ideas. Debates with bad faith actors are simply platforms for them to spread their message. If someone is so shameless that they will claim any debate is a victory, regardless of performance, it is a clear sign that they should not be debated.

Or to put is simply: the free exchange of ideas is based on the concept that all of us have something of value to add to the discourse. If someone is arguing that I or others are worthless and should be purged from the population, they are violating that fundamental rule. We declared it when the founders said that it was self evident that all people are entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. How can we enter a good faith debate when with someone who denies that first part?
I have the Honor to be your Obedient Servant, P.6
TL+ Member
Doodsmack
Profile Blog Joined August 2010
United States7224 Posts
July 20 2017 18:53 GMT
#162837
This morning, Benjamin Wittes wrote in strong terms about the extraordinary interview the President gave the New York Times and what it reveals about Trump’s understanding of legal institutions and the rule of law. The main theme playing through Trump’s comments is that, as President, he has a clear call on the loyalties and responsiveness of Department of Justice and the FBI. In this case, as in others, the President displays an ethical posture defined by a narrow and intense concern with his own interests. This is an ethics that may have served him well in business. However, it will have disastrous consequences when carried over into the exercise of his public responsibility as President—a duty to act on behalf of others. Ben suggests the DOJ officials should resign in protest; Jack Goldsmith answers that this would be counterproductive and that the most appropriate strongest response would be for all concerned in senior law enforcement to just do their jobs.

...

The interview is one more widening of the window on discussions taking place within the White House about a potential firing of Robert Mueller. The President's riff on the history of the FBI's independence since Nixon was plainly the result of a discussion with his legal team. One has to doubt that the president independently and out of personal curiosity researched the Bureau’s institutional history.

Consider that together with the comments from Jay Sekulow on the networks Sunday about the irregularities in the appointment of Mueller, and it appears clear that his team is reviewing with him and actively preparing for this possibility. This is the one aspect of the interview that could have been intended to serve Trump’s legal defense purposes. He is building the case for dismissal with all his claims against Mueller and others of “conflicts” interest, and he reaffirms in the interview that he has that authority: “[I]t can’t be obstruction because you can say: It’s ended. It’s over. Period.”

Few lawyers would say that the president helped his legal position with this interview. It may be that he only cares so much about the substance if he has concluded that he can end it all, “period,” terminating the investigation and then daring the Congress to impeach him. He would them have put the law behind him and it would be all politics. In the end, though he came close, Nixon would not go that far. As president and as “client,” Trump is different.


www.lawfareblog.com
Ayaz2810
Profile Joined September 2011
United States2763 Posts
July 20 2017 18:59 GMT
#162838
Rekt.





Fox has been particularly "unkind" (considering their past treatment of Trump) to him lately. I can't tell if they are losing patience with him, or if they see this coming to an end sooner rather than later.
Vrtra Vanquisher/Tiamat Trouncer/World Serpent Slayer
Logo
Profile Blog Joined April 2010
United States7542 Posts
July 20 2017 19:09 GMT
#162839
What's being said in that video? The line is hard to make out with all the background noise.
Logo
mozoku
Profile Joined September 2012
United States708 Posts
Last Edited: 2017-07-20 19:35:37
July 20 2017 19:13 GMT
#162840
@Plansix and zlefin
Who decides what is good speech and what is bad speech though?

Under the status quo, it's a combination of violent mobs and university administrators (who can apparently buckle to the mob if they think it's too expensive to restrain). I'm not sure I really like that for the system that's charged with educating our youth.

I'd rather universities simply set a strong precedent that violent protests will not be tolerated. That is how a functioning democracy should work, after all. It doesn't matter what the speaker is saying; violence has no place in our society. Isn't that a lesson the protesters should be learning at university anyway?

At any of these Milo or Ann Coulter events, has any student been expelled or otherwise punished by the universities? At the very least, you'd think a solution like making protesters where large name tags, holding the event in a venue with security cameras, and taking disciplinary action (for those who are acting belligerently) would be feasible and fairly cheap. The fear of being kicked out of uni, in combination with a moderate-sized security force, would probably be enough to keep the speakers safe.

I'm not very informed about universities efforts to keep the speakers safe. Has there been any real effort from them? I vaguely remember hearing from someone that Milo paid for a security force at DePaul last year (as DePaul refused to pay iirc) and they stood by while the protesters rushed past them.
Prev 1 8140 8141 8142 8143 8144 10093 Next
Please log in or register to reply.
Live Events Refresh
Next event in 4h 14m
[ Submit Event ]
Live Streams
Refresh
StarCraft 2
WinterStarcraft659
Nina 243
StarCraft: Brood War
Sea 3354
Noble 47
ggaemo 42
League of Legends
JimRising 712
Counter-Strike
Stewie2K1289
Heroes of the Storm
Khaldor107
Other Games
summit1g6510
shahzam1052
Fuzer 88
Organizations
Other Games
gamesdonequick975
BasetradeTV47
StarCraft 2
Blizzard YouTube
StarCraft: Brood War
BSLTrovo
sctven
[ Show 17 non-featured ]
StarCraft 2
• Berry_CruncH260
• practicex 36
• Adnapsc2 11
• intothetv
• LaughNgamezSOOP
• sooper7s
• AfreecaTV YouTube
• Migwel
• Kozan
• IndyKCrew
StarCraft: Brood War
• STPLYoutube
• ZZZeroYoutube
• BSLYoutube
Dota 2
• lizZardDota265
League of Legends
• Doublelift4802
• Lourlo1436
Other Games
• Scarra1833
Upcoming Events
CranKy Ducklings
4h 14m
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
8h 14m
CSO Cup
10h 14m
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
12h 14m
Bonyth vs Sziky
Dewalt vs Hawk
Hawk vs QiaoGege
Sziky vs Dewalt
Mihu vs Bonyth
Zhanhun vs QiaoGege
QiaoGege vs Fengzi
FEL
1d 3h
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
1d 8h
BSL20 Non-Korean Champi…
1d 12h
Bonyth vs Zhanhun
Dewalt vs Mihu
Hawk vs Sziky
Sziky vs QiaoGege
Mihu vs Hawk
Zhanhun vs Dewalt
Fengzi vs Bonyth
Sparkling Tuna Cup
3 days
Online Event
3 days
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
4 days
[ Show More ]
The PondCast
5 days
Replay Cast
5 days
Korean StarCraft League
6 days
Liquipedia Results

Completed

CSL Xiamen Invitational
Esports World Cup 2025
Murky Cup #2

Ongoing

Copa Latinoamericana 4
Jiahua Invitational
BSL20 Non-Korean Championship
BSL Team Wars
CSLPRO Last Chance 2025
CC Div. A S7
Underdog Cup #2
IEM Cologne 2025
FISSURE Playground #1
BLAST.tv Austin Major 2025
ESL Impact League Season 7
IEM Dallas 2025
PGL Astana 2025
Asian Champions League '25

Upcoming

ASL Season 20: Qualifier #1
ASL Season 20: Qualifier #2
ASL Season 20
CSLPRO Chat StarLAN 3
BSL Season 21
RSL Revival: Season 2
Maestros of the Game
SEL Season 2 Championship
uThermal 2v2 Main Event
FEL Cracov 2025
HCC Europe
ESL Pro League S22
StarSeries Fall 2025
FISSURE Playground #2
BLAST Open Fall 2025
BLAST Open Fall Qual
Esports World Cup 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall 2025
BLAST Bounty Fall Qual
TLPD

1. ByuN
2. TY
3. Dark
4. Solar
5. Stats
6. Nerchio
7. sOs
8. soO
9. INnoVation
10. Elazer
1. Rain
2. Flash
3. EffOrt
4. Last
5. Bisu
6. Soulkey
7. Mini
8. Sharp
Sidebar Settings...

Advertising | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use | Contact Us

Original banner artwork: Jim Warren
The contents of this webpage are copyright © 2025 TLnet. All Rights Reserved.