| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
PeTraSoHot
0 Posts
On May 22 2018 03:23 PeTraSoHot wrote: Unrelated note: My ban period has expired but I'm still unable to send PMs. Can some mod look into that for me plz? Would someone be so kind as to PM a mod asking him to PM me about my inability to send PMs? | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On May 22 2018 09:57 PeTraSoHot wrote: Would someone be so kind as to PM a mod asking him to PM me about my inability to send PMs? I left one of them a note in another thread; generally speaking for stuff like that it's best to try in the website feedback forum. (that's where I put the note) | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
This is the entire reason why the Republicans spent millions investigating the private server issue. And it’s not like this is a new issue. NPR reportered on this less than two weeks after Trump took office. Any amount of information, classified or potentially harmful to Trump himself, could be stolen from that phone. Or put him and his security detail at risk. It was pointed out over a year ago and no one did anything. | ||
KwarK
United States42398 Posts
On May 22 2018 09:57 PeTraSoHot wrote: Would someone be so kind as to PM a mod asking him to PM me about my inability to send PMs? Your PM function is disabled. Presumably a mod did so on purpose. Take it to website feedback but I'm guessing you know what you did. | ||
|
Gahlo
United States35126 Posts
| ||
|
Emnjay808
United States10655 Posts
| ||
|
Reivax
Sweden214 Posts
Holy balls, this is some swampy behavior. Basically two convicted felons, one for bribery, another for pedophilia manages a campaign to succesfully discredit Qatar in the eyes of the White House, with the goal of moving the huge base in Qatar to UAE and also being part of one of the current tense situations in the Middle where Qatars neighbours is blockading them. All while not registering under the FARA act. Broidy was also the 3rd client of Michael Cohens, who apparently paid an ex Playboy Playmate for an abortion after their affair. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On May 22 2018 10:09 Plansix wrote: https://twitter.com/cbudoffbrown/status/998701637886775299 This is the entire reason why the Republicans spent millions investigating the private server issue. And it’s not like this is a new issue. NPR reportered on this less than two weeks after Trump took office. https://twitter.com/samsanders/status/998731284808527872 Any amount of information, classified or potentially harmful to Trump himself, could be stolen from that phone. Or put him and his security detail at risk. It was pointed out over a year ago and no one did anything. IIRC he wasn't following security protocol in Mar a Lago and used private email servers during the transition too. Edit: pile of Trump's people had their security clearances downgraded recently.. I'd assume with cause. | ||
|
iamthedave
England2814 Posts
On May 22 2018 11:23 Emnjay808 wrote: Id love a hypothetical where Trump deletes thousands of "classified/non-classified" emails and nothing happens to him. I think that's already happened, hasn't it? I'm CERTAIN there was a mini news story some months ago where Trump-affiliated guys were acid-washing some files one of the justice departments were after. Someone help me out here? | ||
|
a_flayer
Netherlands2826 Posts
| ||
|
Dan HH
Romania9108 Posts
On May 22 2018 06:40 IgnE wrote: it's not circular. your second paragraph is closer to the point, but Biff already pointed out where Kant talks about this and you can read the wiki if you prefer a summary. i like this little essay, if you still feel 'skeptical' 'It's not circular' doesn't do it for me, your argument as to why causality is 'properly restricted to phenomena' rather than just a property of phenomena (with no claims of exclusivity) was as tautological as can be. Any additional attempt at showing you that would simply be rephrasing it, the more we dwell on this phrase the more made up on the spot it appears to be. Whether we're talking about this from Kant's premises or not, there's an inherent contradiction to any claim that causality cannot exist outside of perception. Bringing google into this didn't help either. Let's look at his own words, we don't need a blogpost to filter it for us, it's concise enough. Now I may say without contradiction: that all the actions of rational beings, so far as they are appearances (occurring in any experience), are subject to the necessity of nature; but the same actions, as regards merely the rational subject and its faculty of acting according to mere reason, are free. For what is required for the necessity of nature? Nothing more than the determinability of every event in the world of sense according to constant laws, that is, a reference to cause in the appearance; in this process the thing in itself at its foundation and its causality remain unknown. But I say, that the law of nature remains, whether the rational being is the cause of the effects in the sensuous world from reason, that is, through freedom, or whether it does not determine them on grounds of reason. For, if the former is the case, the action is performed according to maxims, the effect of which as appearance is always conformable to constant laws; if the latter is the case, and the action not performed on principles of reason, it is subjected to the empirical laws of the sensibility, and in both cases the effects are connected according to constant laws; more than this we do not require or know concerning natural necessity. But in the former case reason is the cause of these laws of nature, and therefore free; in the latter the effects follow according to mere natural laws of sensibility, because reason does not influence it; but reason itself is not determined on that account by the sensibility, and is therefore free in this case too. Freedom is therefore no hindrance to natural law in appearance, neither does this law abrogate the freedom of the practical use of reason, which is connected with things in themselves, as determining grounds. From Prolegomena. Note how careful he is to not claim what you have claimed to know about noumena in these examples he gives. The bolded part in the quote you gave is attacking an argument I didn't make, that claiming the existence of noumena is assigning it a property. Even though it is a problem, I do agree that would be a daft way to approach any hypothetical. The argument I did make was specifically about assigning it properties beyond that, such as being restricted from causality, something that doesn't follow from merely accepting its existence. In any case, the idea that beings-in-themselves could be (not necessarily are) spontaneous is of no more use to us than answering your repeated gotcha question of 'what caused the universe?' by saying it could have started spontaneously or that it could be the initial cause of of the entire causal chain it contains. Answers that would have no basis other than imagination, the square circle kind of imagination. I'm fine with the simpler I don't know. | ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
but its clear youve missed the point at the end when you say "the idea that beings-in-themselves could be (not necessarily are) spontaneous is of no more use to us than answerinng your repeated gotcha question." spontaneity, as the antithesis of causality, is properly restricted to the realm of phenomena, sorry to tell you | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
The hearing came on the same day that the Senate Banking Committee approved an amendment that would block Trump from easing sanctions on ZTE without first certifying to Congress that the company is complying with U.S. law, and a week after the House Appropriations Committee approved a similar provision. The entire deal is rife with conflicts for Trump, from China's involvement in the NK talks to Trump's own business dealings. In Trump's quest for positive news coverage, he seems to be willing to bend over backwards for China ever since he saw what a real trade war would look like. He is America's paper tiger. | ||
|
PhoenixVoid
Canada32740 Posts
EPA spokesman Jahan Wilcox told the barred organizations they were not invited and there was no space for them, but gave no indication of why they specifically were barred. ... Guards barred an AP reporter from passing through a security checkpoint inside the building. When the reporter asked to speak to an EPA public-affairs person, the security guards grabbed the reporter by the shoulders and shoved her forcibly out of the EPA building. https://www.apnews.com/a3521859cf8d4c199cb9a8567abd2b71 I can understand CNN, but this is the AP, the most barebones, fact-based reporting news agency around. I can't help but feel this is retaliation for breaking Trump's ties to Saudi Arabia and the UAE, because of the timing and the suspiciousness of them claiming they didn't invite or make space for the AP of all outlets. At least the EPA did allow them back, but this isn't exactly a good precedent. | ||
|
Excludos
Norway8031 Posts
On May 23 2018 04:11 PhoenixVoid wrote: The AP and CNN was banned from a summit on water contamination held by the EPA. I can understand CNN, but this is the AP, the most barebones, fact-based reporting news agency around. I can't help but feel this is retaliation for breaking Trump's ties to Saudi Arabia and the UAE, because of the timing and the suspiciousness of them claiming they didn't invite or make space for the AP of all outlets. At least the EPA did allow them back, but this isn't exactly a good precedent. I can't understand CNN either. They're far from the worst, and don't deserve half the rep they've been getting from the right winged crowd. It's not like we're barring The Onion here. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18821 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
| ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On May 23 2018 05:33 Excludos wrote: I can't understand CNN either. They're far from the worst, and don't deserve half the rep they've been getting from the right winged crowd. It's not like we're barring The Onion here. because it's not about quality or facts, but about manufactured grievances and taking vengeance for those? it's easy to understand once you ignore factual justifications and focus on politics. | ||
|
PhoenixVoid
Canada32740 Posts
On May 23 2018 05:41 farvacola wrote: Not that Phoenix was doing this, but Golden Mean'ing media outlets a la casually asserting that entities like CNN are just as bad as Fox News is the bread and butter of conservative apologia. I put in CNN that way because we are all very well aware of the Trump administration's feelings about them. But the AP? They're the least offensive, most milquetoast reporting agency ever with like Reuters and AFP. Only reason I could see them getting banned was over their recent reveal of Trump's Middle East ties, because they rarely, if ever, get into partisanship or opinions. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21574 Posts
On May 23 2018 05:58 PhoenixVoid wrote: When your party is based on lies and misinformation the unbiased truth becomes an enemy.I put in CNN that way because we are all very well aware of the Trump administration's feelings about them. But the AP? They're the least offensive, most milquetoast reporting agency ever with like Reuters and AFP. Only reason I could see them getting banned was over their recent reveal of Trump's Middle East ties, because they rarely, if ever, get into partisanship or opinions. This had nothing to do with partisanship. It was a punishment. | ||
| ||
|
|
The PondCast
Bellum Gens Elite
WardiTV Invitational
Replay Cast
OSC
Bellum Gens Elite
WardiTV Invitational
BSL 2v2 ProLeague
Replay Cast
CranKy Ducklings
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
