|
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 January 04 2018 05:25 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2018 05:13 Doodsmack wrote:On January 04 2018 05:08 Danglars wrote:On January 04 2018 04:42 iamthedave wrote:On January 04 2018 02:51 Danglars wrote:On January 04 2018 02:42 hunts wrote:On January 04 2018 01:28 Danglars wrote:On January 04 2018 01:07 brian wrote:On January 03 2018 23:28 Danglars wrote:On January 03 2018 23:14 brian wrote:
I’d be angry if he started using racial slurs on the daily too but i don’t think that’s a very good reason to say ‘maybe stop getting so angry about it and he’ll stop.’
he’s the president of the united states, not a high school bully. why would you treat him like one? and do you think treating the president of the united states like a high school bully is truly the best course of action?
you’re pretending to offer counsel and say the obvious question is unwarranted but it’s not. at what point do you stop blaming the liberals? I would’ve imagined this is a bridge too far. No, it is not the liberals fault he can’t help himself from name calling. This would seem to be apparent since he’s been doing it since before he started campaigning. But perhaps it’s not apparent to all. 1. You're pretending to offer counsel. 2. You're really just blaming liberals. 3. It's not liberal's fault he can't help himself from name calling. The logical leaps are very athletic of you. Have you ever engaged on twitter with a twitter troll? Tell me, did responding with outrage and demands to stop ever yield that kind of behavior change you asked for? Do you think repeated demands (I guess you're referring to Pocahontas as some kind of 'racial slur,' but I really have no idea) are likely to get less of the behavior or more of the behavior? what are you even talking about here? like i said, he’s not a twitter troll. he’s not a high school bully. why do you suggest treating him like one? he’s the president. so your honest belief is treating the president of the united states like a high school bully is the best course of action? what logical leaps are you talking about? you said in plain english that you’re trying to offer advice. are you not blaming liberals when you say ‘stop outraging and he’ll stop?’ and lastly yes, it is not the liberals fault he can’t help himself from name calling. is this personal to you? sorry if you were offended by anything i said. but it seems clear you’re blaming liberals here, and so the question remains, when is it//where is the line that you don’t? If he acts like one on social media, you should respond like you're dealing with one on social media. No harm intended personally to you or others. We just disagree on tactics and implications. I don't think dealing with Trump's twitter activities tactically necessarily means liberals are at fault for his actions. But the white house said anything he says over social media is official statement from the president. How would you feel if Obama made a state of the union saying that he has a bigger dick than Kim Jon Un, and then called republicans a bunch of whiny incestuous old white men? If Obama conducted himself on social media just like Trump did and does, I’d say he’s clearly just stirring the pot and stop feeding the troll. Isn't this a problematic stance, though? Sarah Huckabee Sanders - official White House spokeswoman - has repeatedly referred people to Trump's twitter to find out the White House's stance on tons of issues. Doesn't that make Trump's twitter an official arm of the White House rather than simply just a place for an incredibly unpleasant man to display how unpleasant he is? And doesn't that mean his bullying tweets have to be taken more seriously than you imply? I’m sure ten minutes of reflection will judge whether a tweet on joe scarborough’s low ratings or Elizabeth Warren’s ancestry reflects a White House stance on FCC policy or the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The public feuds and schoolyard bully antics are pretty obvious ... he’s not pulling off an elaborate deception that’s problematic beyond simply unpresidential. Has North Korea escalated its actions in part because of Trump's insults? I mean they did just ask for a dialogue with South Korea. Mixed reactions. If they don’t nuke us or South Korea/Japan in the next three years for Trump calling him “rocket man,” will you be surprised, disappointed, other?
Sounds like you are not certain as to whether Trump's insults provoke North Korea. Do you find it problematic that you don't know the answer to that question? Earlier you said the public feuds are not problematic beyond simply unpresidential, so it seems like you are giving Trump a pass here.
|
On January 04 2018 05:33 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2018 05:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 04 2018 05:28 Danglars wrote:On January 04 2018 05:22 GreenHorizons wrote:
I'm curious if Danglars thinks he would have made the same sort of argument about how to treat a presidents tweets if it was Obama tweeting bullying statements to/about people/groups he doesn't like (let's not pretend he doesn't make these statements outside of twitter as well).
Personally I think it would look a lot more like everything he's complaining liberals are doing. Are you confusing support for those activities vs appropriate response to those activities? I just answered less than five posts ago almost the same question. You think I’m cheering Trump on or something? Rofl. No, I'm wondering if you think you would suggest to ignore Obama doing the same thing? I think you know you wouldn't. I think we all know that if Obama acted like that you wouldn't be treating it the same way, but I'm curious if you'd admit it. Yeah just answered that question.
Well that should help people understand why your argument seems so foolish, being wrapped in partisanship, hypocritical and all.
|
I mean what is Manaforts hope here? If he wins the lawsuit okay so what? All the evidence against him is admissible and someone else will just prosecute him and win. I do not understand what it is he is hoping to accomplish other than to get Fox News on his side.
Based on that I am just assuming this is one of those desperation lawsuits that will go nowhere.
|
On January 04 2018 05:34 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2018 05:25 Danglars wrote:On January 04 2018 05:13 Doodsmack wrote:On January 04 2018 05:08 Danglars wrote:On January 04 2018 04:42 iamthedave wrote:On January 04 2018 02:51 Danglars wrote:On January 04 2018 02:42 hunts wrote:On January 04 2018 01:28 Danglars wrote:On January 04 2018 01:07 brian wrote:On January 03 2018 23:28 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
1. You're pretending to offer counsel.
2. You're really just blaming liberals.
3. It's not liberal's fault he can't help himself from name calling.
The logical leaps are very athletic of you. Have you ever engaged on twitter with a twitter troll? Tell me, did responding with outrage and demands to stop ever yield that kind of behavior change you asked for? Do you think repeated demands (I guess you're referring to Pocahontas as some kind of 'racial slur,' but I really have no idea) are likely to get less of the behavior or more of the behavior? what are you even talking about here? like i said, he’s not a twitter troll. he’s not a high school bully. why do you suggest treating him like one? he’s the president. so your honest belief is treating the president of the united states like a high school bully is the best course of action? what logical leaps are you talking about? you said in plain english that you’re trying to offer advice. are you not blaming liberals when you say ‘stop outraging and he’ll stop?’ and lastly yes, it is not the liberals fault he can’t help himself from name calling. is this personal to you? sorry if you were offended by anything i said. but it seems clear you’re blaming liberals here, and so the question remains, when is it//where is the line that you don’t? If he acts like one on social media, you should respond like you're dealing with one on social media. No harm intended personally to you or others. We just disagree on tactics and implications. I don't think dealing with Trump's twitter activities tactically necessarily means liberals are at fault for his actions. But the white house said anything he says over social media is official statement from the president. How would you feel if Obama made a state of the union saying that he has a bigger dick than Kim Jon Un, and then called republicans a bunch of whiny incestuous old white men? If Obama conducted himself on social media just like Trump did and does, I’d say he’s clearly just stirring the pot and stop feeding the troll. Isn't this a problematic stance, though? Sarah Huckabee Sanders - official White House spokeswoman - has repeatedly referred people to Trump's twitter to find out the White House's stance on tons of issues. Doesn't that make Trump's twitter an official arm of the White House rather than simply just a place for an incredibly unpleasant man to display how unpleasant he is? And doesn't that mean his bullying tweets have to be taken more seriously than you imply? I’m sure ten minutes of reflection will judge whether a tweet on joe scarborough’s low ratings or Elizabeth Warren’s ancestry reflects a White House stance on FCC policy or the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The public feuds and schoolyard bully antics are pretty obvious ... he’s not pulling off an elaborate deception that’s problematic beyond simply unpresidential. Has North Korea escalated its actions in part because of Trump's insults? I mean they did just ask for a dialogue with South Korea. Mixed reactions. If they don’t nuke us or South Korea/Japan in the next three years for Trump calling him “rocket man,” will you be surprised, disappointed, other? Sounds like you are not certain as to whether Trump's insults provoke North Korea. Do you find it problematic that you don't know the answer to that question? Earlier you said the public feuds are not problematic beyond simply unpresidential, so it seems like you are giving Trump a pass here.
I’m not sure if current behavior is actual escalation due in part to Trump’s insults, given recent requests to speak with South Korea. That’s Kim Jong Un’s mixed messages, not Trump. Google if you need the news story about the request for dialogue.
|
On January 04 2018 05:34 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2018 05:33 Danglars wrote:On January 04 2018 05:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 04 2018 05:28 Danglars wrote:On January 04 2018 05:22 GreenHorizons wrote:
I'm curious if Danglars thinks he would have made the same sort of argument about how to treat a presidents tweets if it was Obama tweeting bullying statements to/about people/groups he doesn't like (let's not pretend he doesn't make these statements outside of twitter as well).
Personally I think it would look a lot more like everything he's complaining liberals are doing. Are you confusing support for those activities vs appropriate response to those activities? I just answered less than five posts ago almost the same question. You think I’m cheering Trump on or something? Rofl. No, I'm wondering if you think you would suggest to ignore Obama doing the same thing? I think you know you wouldn't. I think we all know that if Obama acted like that you wouldn't be treating it the same way, but I'm curious if you'd admit it. Yeah just answered that question. Well that should help people understand why your argument seems so foolish, being wrapped in partisanship, hypocritical and all.
The most helpful part you had was asking a question I already answered, and telling us you already know my true answer, but are wondering if I’ll admit it or lie about it. Welp, you answer your own questions without my input, I’m not sure where else to go. Maybe I should ask micronesia and mustaju if they have an opinion on your posting too? Haha.
|
On January 04 2018 05:36 Adreme wrote:
I mean what is Manaforts hope here? If he wins the lawsuit okay so what? All the evidence against him is admissible and someone else will just prosecute him and win. I do not understand what it is he is hoping to accomplish other than to get Fox News on his side.
Based on that I am just assuming this is one of those desperation lawsuits that will go nowhere.
There is not a chance in hell that Manafort wins this lawsuit. If he thought this argument had merit he would have filed it as a motion to dismiss in the case that Mueller brought against him. Manafort just wants a headline about his attempt to make a really crappy argument for some reason.
Manafort claims that Mueller exceeded his mandate by charging him with crimes committed before the campaign begin. The mandate establishing Mueller's investigation specifically states:
"the Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confirmed by then-FBI Director James 8. Corney in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including:
(i) any links and/or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and
(ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation"
Manafort's finances therefore are clearly fair game. Manafort himself is quite aware of this, which is why it's a separate suit, not a motion to dismiss. His argument is bullshit and he knows it. What I don't understand is why he is bothering to make it at all.
|
On January 04 2018 05:48 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2018 05:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 04 2018 05:33 Danglars wrote:On January 04 2018 05:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 04 2018 05:28 Danglars wrote:On January 04 2018 05:22 GreenHorizons wrote:
I'm curious if Danglars thinks he would have made the same sort of argument about how to treat a presidents tweets if it was Obama tweeting bullying statements to/about people/groups he doesn't like (let's not pretend he doesn't make these statements outside of twitter as well).
Personally I think it would look a lot more like everything he's complaining liberals are doing. Are you confusing support for those activities vs appropriate response to those activities? I just answered less than five posts ago almost the same question. You think I’m cheering Trump on or something? Rofl. No, I'm wondering if you think you would suggest to ignore Obama doing the same thing? I think you know you wouldn't. I think we all know that if Obama acted like that you wouldn't be treating it the same way, but I'm curious if you'd admit it. Yeah just answered that question. Well that should help people understand why your argument seems so foolish, being wrapped in partisanship, hypocritical and all. The most helpful part you had was asking a question I already answered, and telling us you already know my true answer, but are wondering if I’ll admit it or lie about it. Welp, you answer your own questions without my input, I’m not sure where else to go. Maybe I should ask micronesia and mustaju if they have an opinion on your posting too? Haha.
To be fair, I'm not just assuming but recalling you treating public statements with a much more critical eye when the political affiliation was different but I was trying to see if you genuinely thought you would have the same perspective. At this point I'm inclined to think you do and that's quite informative as well.
|
It's comical, he's found some criminal like nature in my dealings only because he was searching for stuff outside of what he was should be doing.
Is essentially what he's asserting.
Meaning the lawsuit is completely unnecessary because a judge in his case is the one to determine jurisdiction, and he should be filing to dismiss.
Just because you can file something doesn't mean you'll have your day in court, at most you'll have your preliminary meeting with the judge where he tosses your case out for being full of shit.
|
|
|
On January 04 2018 06:15 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2018 05:48 Danglars wrote:On January 04 2018 05:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 04 2018 05:33 Danglars wrote:On January 04 2018 05:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 04 2018 05:28 Danglars wrote:On January 04 2018 05:22 GreenHorizons wrote:
I'm curious if Danglars thinks he would have made the same sort of argument about how to treat a presidents tweets if it was Obama tweeting bullying statements to/about people/groups he doesn't like (let's not pretend he doesn't make these statements outside of twitter as well).
Personally I think it would look a lot more like everything he's complaining liberals are doing. Are you confusing support for those activities vs appropriate response to those activities? I just answered less than five posts ago almost the same question. You think I’m cheering Trump on or something? Rofl. No, I'm wondering if you think you would suggest to ignore Obama doing the same thing? I think you know you wouldn't. I think we all know that if Obama acted like that you wouldn't be treating it the same way, but I'm curious if you'd admit it. Yeah just answered that question. Well that should help people understand why your argument seems so foolish, being wrapped in partisanship, hypocritical and all. The most helpful part you had was asking a question I already answered, and telling us you already know my true answer, but are wondering if I’ll admit it or lie about it. Welp, you answer your own questions without my input, I’m not sure where else to go. Maybe I should ask micronesia and mustaju if they have an opinion on your posting too? Haha. To be fair, I'm not just assuming but recalling you treating public statements with a much more critical eye when the political affiliation was different but I was trying to see if you genuinely thought you would have the same perspective. At this point I'm inclined to think you do and that's quite informative as well.
I also remember others having a critical eye when their man was in the office and they didn’t feel the need to disparage the red states and Republicans at large so often. Now it feels like colonial governors reporting on unruly peasants under their charge. I guess neither of us can have what we want, as much as we can’t both be right. At least your actions show you think I have a point, since you don’t actually explode after every tweet lol.
|
On January 04 2018 05:36 Adreme wrote:
I mean what is Manaforts hope here? If he wins the lawsuit okay so what? All the evidence against him is admissible and someone else will just prosecute him and win. I do not understand what it is he is hoping to accomplish other than to get Fox News on his side.
Based on that I am just assuming this is one of those desperation lawsuits that will go nowhere.
He's very likely to die in prison at this point. That's gotta seriously fuck with you. It is wonderful to watch, though. I'm glad he's experiencing so much anxiety and dread.
|
On January 04 2018 05:45 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On January 04 2018 05:34 Doodsmack wrote:On January 04 2018 05:25 Danglars wrote:On January 04 2018 05:13 Doodsmack wrote:On January 04 2018 05:08 Danglars wrote:On January 04 2018 04:42 iamthedave wrote:On January 04 2018 02:51 Danglars wrote:On January 04 2018 02:42 hunts wrote:On January 04 2018 01:28 Danglars wrote:On January 04 2018 01:07 brian wrote:
[quote]
what are you even talking about here? like i said, he’s not a twitter troll. he’s not a high school bully. why do you suggest treating him like one? he’s the president. so your honest belief is treating the president of the united states like a high school bully is the best course of action?
what logical leaps are you talking about? you said in plain english that you’re trying to offer advice. are you not blaming liberals when you say ‘stop outraging and he’ll stop?’ and lastly yes, it is not the liberals fault he can’t help himself from name calling.
is this personal to you? sorry if you were offended by anything i said. but it seems clear you’re blaming liberals here, and so the question remains, when is it//where is the line that you don’t? If he acts like one on social media, you should respond like you're dealing with one on social media. No harm intended personally to you or others. We just disagree on tactics and implications. I don't think dealing with Trump's twitter activities tactically necessarily means liberals are at fault for his actions. But the white house said anything he says over social media is official statement from the president. How would you feel if Obama made a state of the union saying that he has a bigger dick than Kim Jon Un, and then called republicans a bunch of whiny incestuous old white men? If Obama conducted himself on social media just like Trump did and does, I’d say he’s clearly just stirring the pot and stop feeding the troll. Isn't this a problematic stance, though? Sarah Huckabee Sanders - official White House spokeswoman - has repeatedly referred people to Trump's twitter to find out the White House's stance on tons of issues. Doesn't that make Trump's twitter an official arm of the White House rather than simply just a place for an incredibly unpleasant man to display how unpleasant he is? And doesn't that mean his bullying tweets have to be taken more seriously than you imply? I’m sure ten minutes of reflection will judge whether a tweet on joe scarborough’s low ratings or Elizabeth Warren’s ancestry reflects a White House stance on FCC policy or the Bureau of Indian Affairs. The public feuds and schoolyard bully antics are pretty obvious ... he’s not pulling off an elaborate deception that’s problematic beyond simply unpresidential. Has North Korea escalated its actions in part because of Trump's insults? I mean they did just ask for a dialogue with South Korea. Mixed reactions. If they don’t nuke us or South Korea/Japan in the next three years for Trump calling him “rocket man,” will you be surprised, disappointed, other? Sounds like you are not certain as to whether Trump's insults provoke North Korea. Do you find it problematic that you don't know the answer to that question? Earlier you said the public feuds are not problematic beyond simply unpresidential, so it seems like you are giving Trump a pass here. I’m not sure if current behavior is actual escalation due in part to Trump’s insults, given recent requests to speak with South Korea. That’s Kim Jong Un’s mixed messages, not Trump. Google if you need the news story about the request for dialogue.
If you're getting mixed messages from Kim Jong Un, it's possible that Trump's insults are having an affect. And that possibility is problematic. Not that I needed to restate myself to get the point across.
|
On January 04 2018 04:28 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2018 10:20 zlefin wrote:
@iamthedave:
there isn't compromise because at least one (maybe two) of the parties don't want compromise. compromise cannot be done unless both parties agree to it.
and you should look to the deeper layers, to see WHY american media is more polarized. always more layers to the onion (well, not really, but a nice saying).
mostly just commenting/responding; were there any of the questions you posed on the last page that you actually need more specific answers to? Sorry for the late reply. The deeper layer that seems most significant in this case was the deliberate politicisation of the media done by Murdoch waaaaaaay back when. A lot of what's happening the US right now seems the sort of thing Murdoch aspired to as a young man. People coming to him - and only him - for news that he practically invents to suit his purposes. Fake News is the apotheosis of the Murdoch dream; de-legitimization of all media, so that he can win the entertainment war he started in the first place. By all means pour on the layers, though  Do you think the state of US education has something to do with it? I don't know much in specific but I know the US education system - save for higher education - is very poorly regarded internationally, at least in comparison to other western nations. I think it's getting better though? It seems to be currently ranked around 14th out of 40, and I'm sure it was lower than that a few years ago. As for specific questions I'd like input on... How do people compromise? Culturally. Individuals obviously can. I'm sure you have conservative friends, and I certainly know people on both sides of the aisle. But how can the US get back to a healthy - or at least healthier - public political discourse? When both sides do nothing but scorched earth politics where they portray the opposing side as borderline satanic, in a nation where such comparisons are meaningful, how can either side talk in a way that matters? And where do you think the conversation begins? Who is in a position to start it? I think the US Media is uniquely ill-equipped to do it due to the previously-mentioned politicization. Do you think it's going to get worse before better? And if you think it's going to get worse, how do you think that might demonstrate itself?
It's been awhile since i've read much on the research in the area; my vague recollection is that one of the key deeper layers is changes in the economics due to advancing technology: murdoch is hardly the first person to try selling a partisan rag (especially seeing as he was predated by the rise of conservative talk radio which has a very similar attitude to fox news); it's just that the new medium of cable changed the economics needed to run a tv station compared to the more broadcast TV-focused era.
the cost to enter and maintain a presence in the marketplace has simply gotten far lower, which makes it far more feasible to run very niche programming. the ever growing number of cable channels (and concurrent lowering of costs), plus the even more extreme cost reduction of the internet, simply enabled such discourse where before it would be unprofitable.
I doubt US education had anything to do with it; for all its flaws, its no observably worse than it ever was, and is in all likelihood a little bit better. people have always been this dumb, it's just not always apparent.
at present I see no particular way to compromise, absent a change in the public at large. compromise requires 2 people to want to reach a compromise; if there aren't, as is the case here, then there can be no compromise. it also requires actual reasonable people, which is also not the case here.
the general history of such things indicates that it often requires not holding people properly responsible for their actions.
changing the economic incentives around reporting to better favor higher quality and more thoughtful reporting might help, but may be impossible.
changing the voting system to one that better favors centrists/moderates could work; i.e. change the behavior by changing the underlying pressures that lead to it.
by the very nature of the situation noone can be in a place to start such a discussion, cuz they would be reasonable people, and hence opposed to the inherently unreasonable. instead they would be attacked and delegitimized.
and at any rate I see no suitable individuals; nor any clear starting places for the conversation. especially not in a way that can generate enough funding to cover its costs, or that people would listen to.
most US media still isn't THAT politicized; some are, but most aren't quite THAT bad about it. you just hear more about the bad ones.
it's probably going to get worse until a crisis forces a change due to backlash/horrible outcome.
|
Who knows what it could mean.
|
He’s got to meet with Paul Ryan anyways if the DoJ continues stonewalling Ryan’s House Intelligence Committee. Today was the deadline. They didn’t even acknowledge the requests for documents last time until Paul Ryan made a speech condemning their lack of transparency and compliance with oversight.
|
|
|
And one hint of things to come (provided since I remember people here wondering if Trump’s tweets were hiding a bad news story about to break)
Interesting times.
|
Not only has that "pretend Nunes has any credibility" Fox News tweet already been posted in this thread, it was literally you who posted it Danglars.
|
Would not providing documents really require Rosenstein and Wray to meet with Ryan like this? It seems like a politely worded "screw off" letter would have been fine. There's got to be a little more to the story I think.
|
On January 04 2018 04:28 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On January 02 2018 10:20 zlefin wrote:
@iamthedave:
there isn't compromise because at least one (maybe two) of the parties don't want compromise. compromise cannot be done unless both parties agree to it.
and you should look to the deeper layers, to see WHY american media is more polarized. always more layers to the onion (well, not really, but a nice saying).
mostly just commenting/responding; were there any of the questions you posed on the last page that you actually need more specific answers to? Do you think the state of US education has something to do with it? I don't know much in specific but I know the US education system - save for higher education - is very poorly regarded internationally, at least in comparison to other western nations. I think it's getting better though? It seems to be currently ranked around 14th out of 40, and I'm sure it was lower than that a few years ago.
I wouldn't put too much stock in education rankings. China supposedly beats us by every measure, yet most Chinese family with the means would prefer to send their children to international (i.e. Western) schools, many of which teach the American curriculum.
Measuring and comparing educational progress between countries and summarizing into a single number/ranking would seem to be an impossibly hard task upon any reflection. It makes for great headlines and political talking points, but results in little good overall. I mean, we could have a 100 page debate on this very forum about what one is supposed to even get out of an education (employable skills? A love of learning? Master test-takers? Interpersonal skills? An examined life? Religious teaching? etc. etc.)--and that's a discussion entirely between relatively culturally and economically similar Westerners. It'd also have to consider for how much pressure is academic pressure is healthy for a student, how time should be spent in school, the value of extracurriculars, etc.
It's vastly too complicated to rank uni-dimensionally.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
