|
On October 01 2020 22:39 dUTtrOACh wrote:According to what you posted, he kind of... did. On an election year. Show nested quote +
By mid-2012, Obamacare had become the colloquial term used both by supporters and by opponents.[316] Obama endorsed the nickname, saying, "I have no problem with people saying Obama cares. I do care."[317]
I give up that's a bad faith argument.
There is no relation between answering "do you mind that people call that law with your name" (which was originally derogatory) and forcing associations with threat of fines to put papers praising you just before an election.
If you can't see the difference, I won't engage more, it's bullshit.
|
|
|
Northern Ireland26794 Posts
On October 01 2020 21:17 Nouar wrote:The other thread is still blocked so I have to post here, but this is among the most shameless things I've seen.... He did something like earlier this too I believe, I remember seeing it at the time. Edit : ah yeah, in the quote, about the covid relief checks. Trump wants the food aid boxes to poor family to compulsorily include a letter with his name : Show nested quote +
The letter comes in both English and Spanish on White House letterhead and features Trump’s bold signature: “As President, safeguarding the health and well-being of our citizens is one of my highest priorities,” it reads. “As part of our response to coronavirus, I prioritized sending nutritious food from our farmers to families in need throughout America.”
The move is the latest example of Trump using the levers of government and taxpayer dollars for self-promotion as he runs for re-election. In the early months of the crisis, the president enclosed letters with his signature to millions of Americans getting stimulus money stemming from a congressional aid package – and made sure his name was printed on the checks. His health department is now rushing to push out a $300 million taxpayer-funded ad campaign promoting the administration’s coronavirus response.
Ah yes, I also forgot that 300M taxpayer money funded campaign to laud the administration's coronavirus response. In what world is that acceptable, Republicans?? https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/01/trump-letter-food-aid-boxes-424230
It’s breathtaking levels of leveraging suffering to feed his narcissism.
I’ve kind of given up on Republicans denouncing even his most egregious behaviour, I hope the thread’s denizens will prove my pessimism wrong here though.
It would be (only slightly) less galling if he wasn’t including a ‘thank your glorious benefactor’ note if his administration’s response to Covid hadn’t been so bloody inadequate in the first place.
|
On October 01 2020 23:19 WombaT wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2020 21:17 Nouar wrote:The other thread is still blocked so I have to post here, but this is among the most shameless things I've seen.... He did something like earlier this too I believe, I remember seeing it at the time. Edit : ah yeah, in the quote, about the covid relief checks. Trump wants the food aid boxes to poor family to compulsorily include a letter with his name :
The letter comes in both English and Spanish on White House letterhead and features Trump’s bold signature: “As President, safeguarding the health and well-being of our citizens is one of my highest priorities,” it reads. “As part of our response to coronavirus, I prioritized sending nutritious food from our farmers to families in need throughout America.”
The move is the latest example of Trump using the levers of government and taxpayer dollars for self-promotion as he runs for re-election. In the early months of the crisis, the president enclosed letters with his signature to millions of Americans getting stimulus money stemming from a congressional aid package – and made sure his name was printed on the checks. His health department is now rushing to push out a $300 million taxpayer-funded ad campaign promoting the administration’s coronavirus response.
Ah yes, I also forgot that 300M taxpayer money funded campaign to laud the administration's coronavirus response. In what world is that acceptable, Republicans?? https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/01/trump-letter-food-aid-boxes-424230 It’s breathtaking levels of leveraging suffering to feed his narcissism. I’ve kind of given up on Republicans denouncing even his most egregious behaviour, I hope the thread’s denizens will prove my pessimism wrong here though. It would be (only slightly) less galling if he wasn’t including a ‘thank your glorious benefactor’ note if his administration’s response to Covid hadn’t been so bloody inadequate in the first place.
Maybe they should start putting it on covid death certificates too.
|
Trump always finding new ways to lower the bar! Imagine if he had spent that 300 mill on actually providing more food or PPE or paying front line workers more or literally anything other than furthering his own name?
|
It's no worse than when he delayed the COVID paper relief checks so that he could have his names on them
|
It is honestly kind of impressive how much of a narcissistic baby Trump is.
Not as impressive as people actually thinking that this man makes a good president. It was obvious in 2016 that he would make a bad president, it was obvious throughout his presidency that he is a bad president, and it is obvious now that he would continue to be a bad president if elected. Yet somehow a sizeable portion of americans still wants to elect this absolute buffoon.
|
|
|
On October 02 2020 00:10 Simberto wrote:
It is honestly kind of impressive how much of a narcissistic baby Trump is.
Not as impressive as people actually thinking that this man makes a good president. It was obvious in 2016 that he would make a bad president, it was obvious throughout his presidency that he is a bad president, and it is obvious now that he would continue to be a bad president if elected. Yet somehow a sizeable portion of americans still wants to elect this absolute buffoon.
He's a useful buffoon, he's a useful idiot, and he's a useful narcissist. So none of that stuff matters to his base. They just care about useful. Consequences be damned.
|
I think a mix of muted and open debate sections is appropriate. If you have a time where candidates need to present their views or speak about a topic, ex. coronavirus for 90s, your opponent should be muted. At the end of 90s "Thank you xxx, your time is up <mute xxx>, yyy, what are your views on <topic>, 90s"
If there's a comment/respond section, I don't see any way of selective muting to avoid bias. It's going to be a shitshow unless you clamp down hard to something like 30s, 30s mute/responses at which point it's overly structured.
Just let half the debate be a shitshow, and hope that the other half redeems it.
|
|
|
On October 02 2020 01:28 Lmui wrote:
I think a mix of muted and open debate sections is appropriate. If you have a time where candidates need to present their views or speak about a topic, ex. coronavirus for 90s, your opponent should be muted. At the end of 90s "Thank you xxx, your time is up <mute xxx>, yyy, what are your views on <topic>, 90s"
If there's a comment/respond section, I don't see any way of selective muting to avoid bias. It's going to be a shitshow unless you clamp down hard to something like 30s, 30s mute/responses at which point it's overly structured.
Just let half the debate be a shitshow, and hope that the other half redeems it.
I’d also like some questions to have a clear time limit and the other guy muted.
Then moderator steps back for crosstalk about each other’s answers. Biden says Trump won’t do anything, didn’t really mean it. Trump says Biden’s record shows he’s lying in his answer and/or incompetent. That kind of stuff. (And it that’s a shitshow of a crosstalk, that’s just the two candidates nominated for the presidency, so suffer through it for the next muted question or turn it off)
|
Does helping Trump with his prosecution complex do anything tho? Is there anyone outside of the people who will vote Trump anyway that buys into it?
|
I doubt even muting Trump's mic would keep him silent, he'd likely just yell and shout regardless so we'll probably hear him anyway
|
Anyone wants another example of Barr's DOJ being a hack?
There is a ruckus about the Mueller team wiping their cellphones before giving them back. It stems from a FOIA lawsuit from Judicial Watch, and the DOJ gracefully provided the fact that 15+cellphones were wiped and contained no data. It would in fact be an issue if it was true as is. However, it is misleading.
It seems (and that sounds perfectly normal to me as an IT guy) that everything was backed up in several locations, so the phones being wiped don't mean any data was lost. The information was provided to Judicial Watch and the DOJ, but they surprisingly are not in a hurry to recognize that publicly ;-)
https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/andrew-weissmann-says-hes-debunked-conspiracy-theory-about-mueller-team-wiping-cell-phones/?utm_source=mostpopular
|
On October 01 2020 22:53 NewSunshine wrote:
So it's cool to have an obnoxious "Thank Dear Leader" note in your food provisions then. Because poor people need to be reminded that Trump is president. It's been doing a whole lot for them so far.
Another disgusting act by a disgusting human being. At this point, if you're informed and voting for Trump, you have some morality issue.
|
On October 02 2020 02:16 Nouar wrote:Anyone wants another example of Barr's DOJ being a hack? There is a ruckus about the Mueller team wiping their cellphones before giving them back. It stems from a FOIA lawsuit from Judicial Watch, and the DOJ gracefully provided the fact that 15+cellphones were wiped and contained no data. It would in fact be an issue if it was true as is. However, it is misleading. It seems (and that sounds perfectly normal to me as an IT guy) that everything was backed up in several locations, so the phones being wiped don't mean any data was lost. The information was provided to Judicial Watch and the DOJ, but they surprisingly are not in a hurry to recognize that publicly ;-) https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/andrew-weissmann-says-hes-debunked-conspiracy-theory-about-mueller-team-wiping-cell-phones/?utm_source=mostpopular
Why did they wipe them in the first place
The reasons provided included from hardware issues, damage, and forgotten passwords (if the incorrect password is typed more than ten times, the phone automatically returns to factory settings).
Suuuure...
|
On October 02 2020 02:20 Sent. wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2020 02:16 Nouar wrote:Anyone wants another example of Barr's DOJ being a hack? There is a ruckus about the Mueller team wiping their cellphones before giving them back. It stems from a FOIA lawsuit from Judicial Watch, and the DOJ gracefully provided the fact that 15+cellphones were wiped and contained no data. It would in fact be an issue if it was true as is. However, it is misleading. It seems (and that sounds perfectly normal to me as an IT guy) that everything was backed up in several locations, so the phones being wiped don't mean any data was lost. The information was provided to Judicial Watch and the DOJ, but they surprisingly are not in a hurry to recognize that publicly ;-) https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/andrew-weissmann-says-hes-debunked-conspiracy-theory-about-mueller-team-wiping-cell-phones/?utm_source=mostpopular Why did they wipe them in the first place Show nested quote +The reasons provided included from hardware issues, damage, and forgotten passwords (if the incorrect password is typed more than ten times, the phone automatically returns to factory settings). Suuuure...
As long as the backup date is around the wiping date, and the integrity check of the backup has not been tampered with, it's fine. The information should be very easy for DOJ to find out. However, they only presented the crunchy bits.
I do agree that is something that needs to be verified. I don't agree with how the matter was disclosed.
|
|
|
On October 02 2020 02:20 Sent. wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2020 02:16 Nouar wrote:Anyone wants another example of Barr's DOJ being a hack? There is a ruckus about the Mueller team wiping their cellphones before giving them back. It stems from a FOIA lawsuit from Judicial Watch, and the DOJ gracefully provided the fact that 15+cellphones were wiped and contained no data. It would in fact be an issue if it was true as is. However, it is misleading. It seems (and that sounds perfectly normal to me as an IT guy) that everything was backed up in several locations, so the phones being wiped don't mean any data was lost. The information was provided to Judicial Watch and the DOJ, but they surprisingly are not in a hurry to recognize that publicly ;-) https://lawandcrime.com/high-profile/andrew-weissmann-says-hes-debunked-conspiracy-theory-about-mueller-team-wiping-cell-phones/?utm_source=mostpopular Why did they wipe them in the first place Show nested quote +The reasons provided included from hardware issues, damage, and forgotten passwords (if the incorrect password is typed more than ten times, the phone automatically returns to factory settings). Suuuure... Surely when you return a phone that was previously used for classified work (and part of the work on the Mueller investigation included classified material) then surely wiping the phone is standard procedure?
You want a bunch of phones lying in storage with potentially classified information on them? You back up the data to a secure server and then wipe them.
Heck your run of the mill boring company office is likely to purge any laptops you loaned, let alone an organisation like the FBI.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
