Individual-1 (Donald Trump)

This forum is for discussion about anything else.
zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #6589  (isolation #200)  » Tue Nov 22, 2016 8:39 pm

I don't either. That's what I was saying.
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #6624  (isolation #201)  » Wed Nov 23, 2016 12:19 pm

In post 6616, karnos wrote:
In post 6611, Davsto wrote:Yeah yeah, I hear your strawman loud and clear

I'm not saying "global warming is real therefore you should put all the money towards global warming with no attention paid to whether or not it's a scam", that isn't close to what I've said, and painting my argument as that is just silly.

Fair steps should be put towards climate change - making renewable energy more accessible, making steps towards replacing fossil fuel power stations with tidal and geothermal and wind and solar power. Even if climate change is wrong, these are steps which are generally good for the whole of humanity. Of course they shouldn't literally fund every single climate change-related thing with no attention paid just because it's climate change because that would be stupid, and I don't think a single person in this thread has suggested such a thing.


But you can do all that without government. I can buy solar panels, put them on my house. I can buy a Tesla instead of a Ford.

Ultimately, when people cry to the government about global warming, it's because they just want money.


They "cry" to the government because singular action is ineffective.

Also, for what it's worth I've made a lot of money out of oil and gas. I don't stand to gain much of anything directly by the increased usage of lower carbon energy sources and quite a bit to lose. But reducing the carbon footprint is definitely the right and correct thing to do.

Frankly, I don't think many people advocate for fighting climate change because they personally stand to gain. Obviously there are some who stand to personally gain, but like many things in the economy, that's a fairly small portion.
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #6630  (isolation #202)  » Wed Nov 23, 2016 12:32 pm

In post 6628, karnos wrote:
In post 6625, zoraster wrote:
They "cry" to the government because singular action is ineffective.




What does that mean?

If everyone lived in a house with solar panels, and drove an electric car, you don't think that would help?

The narrative is all about how our horrible cars are ruining the environment, but you don't think it would be effective to replace our cars with clean energy vehicles?


I think it would help, though I don't know if it's sufficient. But that's if everyone did so (or at least the people who it made sense for). The point is that getting everyone to do so requires some major incentive and coercion. And that's why the government is basically required for any true attempt to meaningfully reduce greenhouse gasses. Otherwise the freerider problem keeps it from being a true solution, just like it doesn't make sense for everyone to pay taxes based on how much they feel like supporting the government.
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #6642  (isolation #203)  » Wed Nov 23, 2016 1:49 pm

In post 6639, karnos wrote:
In post 6635, theplague42 wrote:How do free-marketers simultaneously assume that greed is the way forward (by money incentivizing people) but people will en masse spend more money to be more environmentally friendly?

On a side note, carbon cap and trade would harness the power of the free market to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions.


A few years ago that is exactly what was happening- gasoline was at an all-time high, a lot of people were dumping their SUV for hybrids.

Luckily those friendly Arab countries decided to dump their oil on the market below the going rate to kill the US oil industry, and we got cheap gasoline again.

Money is the best incentive.


That's kinda what people are saying. Incentivize better behavior. Taxes on negative externalities allows the societal cost to be borne by those reaping the benefits of the externality-creating use.
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #6659  (isolation #204)  » Wed Nov 23, 2016 5:05 pm

I used to be pretty close with Borlaug's daughter. He gave my high school commencement speech. Which was pretty bad, honestly.
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #7228  (isolation #205)  » Tue Nov 29, 2016 7:14 pm

In post 7227, Sesq wrote:
In post 7224, Garmr wrote:Isn't the guy who wrote the article one of those bat shit insane truthers?


Someday this is literally going to be the dictionary example of ad hominem.

NOTE: Sesq or any of her affiliates do not wish to comment on the topic in question and wish only to make a stupid observation that someone else already made.


This isn't ad hominem. It may be an unfair attack (I have not checked whether he was or is a truther), but if the problem with the author is his credibility in describing facts rather than in his argumentation, then his credibility being tarnished by pushing a discredited conspiracy theory is relevant and not a fallacy.
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #7325  (isolation #206)  » Wed Nov 30, 2016 11:02 pm

I think that's probably a huge part of it, though I don't think the health was a major thing in the end
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #7336  (isolation #207)  » Wed Nov 30, 2016 11:48 pm

In post 7332, karnos wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2Z9TT6mVig

http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/30/news/ec ... index.html

LOL, Obama couldn't figure it out as president- "some of those jobs just aren't gonna come back ... what magic wand do you have... usually the answer is... he doesn't have an answer", Trump convinces them to stay before he is even sworn in.

Apparently Trump actually does have a magic wand.

Such sad arrogance really, Obama seemed to think that since he didn't know how to fix the situation, a solution doesn't exist.


If only Obama had the principles to offer tax incentives to every company that threatened to leave, we'd be saved! Hint: It's not a coincidence his running partner is the governor of Indiana.
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #7391  (isolation #208)  » Thu Dec 01, 2016 3:33 pm

I'm not an expert on european taxation by any means, but the reason for a German VAT on imports isn't as a tariff but because the VAT applies at all stages of consumption, which means that when an item is exported FROM Germany it's already been taxed by Germany itself.

If Germany exports to a country with a sales tax, then, the good is taxed twice, whereas if a country with a sales tax (or just no VAT) exports to Germany, without the VAT on imports, it'd mean that the goods wouldn't be taxed at all (there is no sales tax in Germany).

From wikipedia:

To fix this problem, nearly all countries that use VAT use special rules for imported and exported goods:
1. All imported goods are charged VAT tax for their full price when they are sold for the first time
2. All exported goods are exempted from any VAT payments

For these reasons VAT on imports and VAT rebates on exports form a common practice approved by the World Trade Organization.
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #7396  (isolation #209)  » Thu Dec 01, 2016 3:56 pm

In post 7394, karnos wrote:
In post 7392, zoraster wrote:I'm not an expert on european taxation by any means, but the reason for a German VAT on imports isn't as a tariff but because the VAT applies at all stages of consumption, which means that when an item is exported FROM Germany it's already been taxed by Germany itself.

If Germany exports to a country with a sales tax, then, the good is taxed twice, whereas if a country with a sales tax (or just no VAT) exports to Germany, without the VAT on imports, it'd mean that the goods wouldn't be taxed at all (there is no sales tax in Germany).

From wikipedia:

To fix this problem, nearly all countries that use VAT use special rules for imported and exported goods:
1. All imported goods are charged VAT tax for their full price when they are sold for the first time
2. All exported goods are exempted from any VAT payments

For these reasons VAT on imports and VAT rebates on exports form a common practice approved by the World Trade Organization.


Yes, but in the end, the buyer who is buying the item has to pay the retail price + VAT. This is no different from the result of a tariff, except the tariff's cost would be included in the retail price.

So (hypothetically) if we had a 19% tariff to match germany's 19% vat, if all else was the same (it's not really), you would have like a $300 laptop in germany for sale for $300 retail + $57 VAT or $357 total, while the same laptop sold in the US by a company forced to pay a 19% tariff would be sold for $357 retail.

In the end, to the consumer, it's the same price.


So wait. Are you saying that imports into the US go through a tariff but then NOT have a sales tax applied? Because depending on the state and city you live in that $357 in the US can go up fairly dramatically from there, whereas the German example stops at $357.
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #7405  (isolation #210)  » Thu Dec 01, 2016 6:50 pm

In post 7404, karnos wrote:
In post 7397, zoraster wrote:
So wait. Are you saying that imports into the US go through a tariff but then NOT have a sales tax applied? Because depending on the state and city you live in that $357 in the US can go up fairly dramatically from there, whereas the German example stops at $357.


There is no federal sales tax.

If you choose to live in a locality that has sales tax, sucks for you, but it's not really the jurisdiction of the federal government.


That's not entirely true as things like the gas tax. But more to the point, we expect our states to provide quite a bit more than most countries do. Sales taxes comprise a large portion of budgets for states for better or worse.

Only 5 states don't have sales taxes (Oregon, Alaska, Delaware, Montana and New Hampshire) comprising only 2.5% of the population, but even of those states localities can institute sales tax in Alaska and Montana.

The average US citizen pays around 7.25% in sales taxes (http://taxfoundation.org/article/state- ... rates-2015). To wave hands at the experiences of people and say it's irrelevant because X could happen is to ignore reality.

Regardless, the purpose of this is to show how apples to oranges your comparing a US imposed Tariff and a compensatory import VAT is. The effects are not equivalent just as there purposes are not the same.
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #7562  (isolation #211)  » Sun Dec 04, 2016 5:59 pm

are we using "direct democracy" to mean "directly elected president" or to mean the technical definition, which is voting directly on policies (e.g. California's proposition system)?
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #7564  (isolation #212)  » Sun Dec 04, 2016 6:06 pm

I think it's important to realize that elections like most things are run under the rules of the game, which in this case is the electoral college. I don't think Trump wins the popular vote if the system were different, but it's an impossible question to answer with certainty.

That said, it's really pretty hard for me to take seriously that an electoral college system is BETTER for democracy. The fact that Clinton won 2.5 million more votes is still important even if that doesn't make Trump's victory illegitimate.
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #7568  (isolation #213)  » Sun Dec 04, 2016 6:39 pm

In post 7566, Vijarada wrote:I find it funny that people are all like "We need popular vote for president!" and no-one complains about the legislative representation on which the electoral college is based. I mean, Maine has the same amount of representation in confirming judges etc as California, maybe that's more of a problem than one candidate beating the other in a close election. The amount that people care about the presidential election to the exclusion of everything else in politics is silly.


Sometimes people do. But the problem discussed here is less about the state's uneven power compared to their populations but rather that their electoral votes go to one winner.
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #7573  (isolation #214)  » Sun Dec 04, 2016 6:53 pm

In post 7571, Kublai Khan wrote:
In post 7569, zoraster wrote:Sometimes people do. But the problem discussed here is less about the state's uneven power compared to their populations but rather that their electoral votes go to one winner.

Did anyone check who would have won if the electoral votes are given out proportionally?


Always a bit tricky as we'd have to assume the way ties are broken. Give me a minute and I'll put something together.
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #7590  (isolation #215)  » Sun Dec 04, 2016 7:34 pm

So purely from a proportional standpoint (regarding electoral votes) without rounding in any way, I calculate it as follows:

Clinton: 238.36
Trump: 231.31
Johnson: 16.69
Stein: 5.37
McMullin: 2.37
Others: 2.26

In reality, most systems that would work this way would use a threshold that would redistribute those votes to the major players. Lots of places use 5%, and there were only 4 places this election where that happened (Johnson in New Mexico and BARELY in Oklahoma and McMullin in Utah and barely in Idaho). If the threshhold were "at least enough to get 1 electoral vote" that'd only leave McMullin in Utah as a third party. If you needed to round so that only whole numbers of electoral votes were used, that'd probably change things a bit depending on how you decided to do that.

Keep in mind that this is just using incomplete information as not all votes have been counted, etc.
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #7701  (isolation #216)  » Mon Dec 05, 2016 12:45 pm

Why are you engaging with him at all?
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #7756  (isolation #217)  » Mon Dec 05, 2016 2:27 pm

Please don't advertise Speakeasy threads in GD ones. It's just frustrating for those who can't yet access it.
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #7762  (isolation #218)  » Mon Dec 05, 2016 2:57 pm

rb, please take this elsewhere. We've gone through the Accountant thing over and over .
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #7780  (isolation #219)  » Mon Dec 05, 2016 7:00 pm

Sesq. There is now a thread to discuss that elsewhere. viewtopic.php?f=6&t=69492
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #8164  (isolation #220)  » Wed Dec 07, 2016 8:20 pm

I'm fascinated by the pro free market, pro-tariff, pro-tax breaks for individual companies philosophy and how that's reconciled.
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #8183  (isolation #221)  » Wed Dec 07, 2016 10:15 pm

implicit bias test isn't about finding out who is good or bad. It's about recognizing the implicit biases we all have. In many ways recognizing your own biases and meeting those head on is probably the "moral" thing than simply having no biases.
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #8185  (isolation #222)  » Wed Dec 07, 2016 10:18 pm

mine?
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #8709  (isolation #223)  » Wed Dec 21, 2016 10:27 am

Well, the argument is that Saudis giving money to the Clinton Foundation is an attempt to influence her to do certain things, right? It says little about whether they want her elected. The KKK's endorsement of Trump is about wanting Trump elected because they see him as a method for advancing their preferences.
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #8720  (isolation #224)  » Wed Dec 21, 2016 11:33 am

In post 8711, karnos wrote:
In post 8710, zoraster wrote:Well, the argument is that Saudis giving money to the Clinton Foundation is an attempt to influence her to do certain things, right? It says little about whether they want her elected.


So are you saying Hillary could still do the things she was bribed to do without being elected?

IMO, being successfully elected is a prerequisite to fulfilling the quid pro quo for donations.


I doubt there's a quid pro quo any more than I think staying at Trump's hotels is a quid pro quo. "Give to my charity" isn't exactly the typical way you get a bribe. But I do think some donors probably gave because they thought it'd make Clinton look more favorably at their causes and hope it leads them to get more access to either her or indirectly to those close to her.

Regardless, it's not uncommon for those giving for political reasons to give to both sides. I know plenty of people and companies that give to both likely candidates either in a primary or general election. Those people and companies almost certainly have some preference on who gets elected, but maintaining access and visibility to candidates is the most important aspect to them. It's why Facebook will sponsor both the RNC and DNC conventions.
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #8726  (isolation #225)  » Wed Dec 21, 2016 11:53 am

if you want to talk about Accountant's unique world-view, there are two Accountant centric threads. Don't make this one into that, please.
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #9364  (isolation #226)  » Thu Jan 05, 2017 10:00 am

what do you mean by "random" there?
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #9367  (isolation #227)  » Thu Jan 05, 2017 10:12 am

In post 9366, Annadog40 wrote:Take a list of known citizens in the area of legal age and put them in a randomizer and it spits out twelve names.


What if one is the accused's brother?
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #9442  (isolation #228)  » Thu Jan 05, 2017 8:01 pm

I'm not sure willful ignorance and dumbness are precisely the same thing.
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #9532  (isolation #229)  » Fri Jan 06, 2017 2:57 pm

I think people react negatively to "white privilege" as a phrase because they look around and think "I didn't grow up with a lot of money. I've had to work hard and I'm smart, and I deserve to get where I am now. I've had to deal with my own hurdles in life." and think that white privilege says those things aren't true. That's not the case, but I think that's how some people feel when faced with the term.
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #9542  (isolation #230)  » Fri Jan 06, 2017 3:09 pm

Race is relevant a lot though.
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #9554  (isolation #231)  » Fri Jan 06, 2017 5:45 pm

In post 9551, Fluminator wrote:I have some better unbiased news sources for you.
http://www.infowars.com/
https://www.rt.com/


It's hard to tell when people are serious anymore.
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #9888  (isolation #232)  » Mon Jan 09, 2017 11:31 pm

i've watched what trump said maybe 20 times and I don't know how you come to any conclusion other than he was making fun of the disability.
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #9890  (isolation #233)  » Mon Jan 09, 2017 11:42 pm

I am. I'll outline:

1. There was this bad stuff the news media wanted to distract from
2. This journalist was sloppy.
3. Trump was just indicating that Kovaleski's "attempts to backtrack in a flustered manner."
4. Trump used the same thing for other opponents that were flustered.
5. There was fallout that was the media.

Am I correct?
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #10041  (isolation #234)  » Tue Jan 10, 2017 2:16 pm

You don't think his pretty obvious history of racism is concerning for someone overseeing the civil rights division?
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #10042  (isolation #235)  » Tue Jan 10, 2017 2:19 pm

Also, how much can the senate really say about marijuana? By their own statute, it's an illegal drug. There's a limit to how much you can tell someone off for potentially going after states that allow pot when your own body has the same thing.

Senator: Do you plan to prosecute those that are involved with marijuana in states where it is legal?
Sessions: I plan to defend and prosecute the laws that you pass.

Not exactly a fruitful line of discussion for the Senate.
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #10047  (isolation #236)  » Tue Jan 10, 2017 2:24 pm

In post 10047, Albert B. Rampage wrote:Legalization isn't something the incoming administration has on their list of priorities. The states will vote and decide and the feds will stay out of it as usual.


I don't think individual users have all that much to fear directly of the feds coming in. But I think there's a high likelihood the federal government will take an interest in, for example, dispensaries, growers, financiers, etc. that are part of the legal marijuana apparatus.

In post 10045, Untrod Tripod wrote:isn't the AG responsible for the feds taking action against people in states that legalized it?


Yes. That's kind of my point.
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #10049  (isolation #237)  » Tue Jan 10, 2017 2:30 pm

in what way?
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #10052  (isolation #238)  » Tue Jan 10, 2017 2:49 pm

to be fair, i'm not sure how much the AG has to do with net neutrality.

But he can have a great deal of influence in prosecuting porn under obscenity laws, which is what Sen. Hatch was after.
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #10214  (isolation #239)  » Wed Jan 11, 2017 12:58 pm

How do you feel about early voting and increased polling locations? How about automatic registration?
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #10280  (isolation #240)  » Wed Jan 11, 2017 8:22 pm

In post 10276, Annadog40 wrote:Or just use Social Security number as voting identification? Would that work?


I'll be honest, giving my SSN to one of those volunteer poll workers would make me kind of nervous.

Voter ID laws would be okay if they were accompanied by a real effort to get all eligible voters IDs as well as expand access to voting generally. But Voter ID laws are generally part of a suite of laws and regulations designed to erect barriers to vote both generally and directed at particular groups.
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #10356  (isolation #241)  » Thu Jan 12, 2017 11:23 am

Is there somewhere, outside of a screenshot, that shows that was actually in the report?
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #10420  (isolation #242)  » Thu Jan 12, 2017 8:39 pm

take it to your thread, accountant.
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #10454  (isolation #243)  » Thu Jan 12, 2017 9:46 pm

why is he playing chess?
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #10586  (isolation #244)  » Mon Jan 16, 2017 12:44 am

Well ACA isn't single payer either so ...
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #10716  (isolation #245)  » Tue Jan 17, 2017 12:12 am

Also that statement kinda misunderstands international law.
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #10718  (isolation #246)  » Tue Jan 17, 2017 12:24 am

Well, also the ICC doesn't have jurisdiction over the US because the US hasn't ratified the Rome Statute.
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #10741  (isolation #247)  » Tue Jan 17, 2017 11:09 am

Did that graphic come from NBC News? I have tried an image search and I do not find it anywhere on there. That individual image file is an imgur one.
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #10744  (isolation #248)  » Tue Jan 17, 2017 11:21 am

cool, thanks. it sucks it doesn't actually link to the article but all of their fact check articles.
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #10888  (isolation #249)  » Thu Jan 19, 2017 9:56 am

In post 10886, karnos wrote:
In post 10884, chamber wrote: It's a race workers can't win.


>The economy isn't weak.

It's weaker than it's been for a long time, in regards to the buying power an average person has.

>The need for workers is just being reduced constantly.

Yes, which is why it's more important than ever to fight for every job. Example: take an economy with 1000 jobs vs an economy with 100 jobs. In the first economy, adding 50 jobs only gives a 5% boost, while in the second 50 jobs is a massive 50% increase. The fact that automation and other things are removing jobs makes it that much more crucial to save or create every single job we can.

>It's a race workers can't win.

In the distant future. Also, the sun is going to burn out and earth will become a frozen ball of death, but that isn't a reason to give up today.


Well, you've kind of raised the big question when you say "It's weaker than it's been for a long time, in regards to the buying power an average person has."

Is the problem that people causing that that people are unemployed or that those who are employed are not receiving the same types of benefits in the past?
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #10901  (isolation #250)  » Thu Jan 19, 2017 10:24 am

In post 10892, karnos wrote:
In post 10889, zoraster wrote:
Well, you've kind of raised the big question when you say "It's weaker than it's been for a long time, in regards to the buying power an average person has."

Is the problem that people causing that that people are unemployed or that those who are employed are not receiving the same types of benefits in the past?


They are interconnected.

A surplus of workers means workers get paid less. It's basic supply & demand. When there are a dozen people willing to replace you for less, you aren't going to be getting any significant raises.

If the situation was turned around, and a company had to work hard to hold onto it's employees, pay & benefits would be better across the board.


And I'm not talking about GDP. A company fires half it's employees and switches to automation and still produces the same amount of stuff, from a GDP perspective it's unchanged, but from the perspective of people who used to work there, the economy just got a lot worse. Even unemployment numbers are deceptive, because it only counts people who are actively searching for work. Guy with an engineering degree who is working at starbucks because he couldn't find a good job? He isn't unemployed. Guy who gave up after looking for work for 2 years and is living at home with his parents? Not unemployed. Guy working part time short-term contracts because it's all he can find, wishing he could desperately get a full time permanent position? Not unemployed.

One of the most telling figures, in my opinion, is home ownership rates. They are at an incredible all time low... yet at the same time home values keep on going up. If the economy isn't weak, why is home ownership at an all time low?


Oh, I absolutely agree with most of what you're saying. I think they're connected, though it's not just as blunt as "less unemployment, higher wages."

But just because they're connected doesn't mean that's the most effective, fullest way to affect the amount of money an average worker has. One of the reasons manufacturing jobs are focused on is that these are jobs that are traditionally unionized and thus have benefits that aren't typically seen other places.

If you talk about a higher minimum wage, better benefits, etc. as requirements, I think it's reasonable to say that it adversely affects employment rates while still being overall positive for the american worker. Because that reduction in employment rate almost certainly isn't a direct, perfect inverse relationship.

Take the recent overtime rules. It basically increased the salary a person gets before they can be exempt from overtime requirements -- from in the 20,000s to in the 40,000s. The regulation was being put into place, and many places already announced they were going to increase people's salaries to reach that cap. A district court judge stopped the regulation from being implemented, and many of these companies decided not to increase salaries after all.
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #11007  (isolation #251)  » Fri Jan 20, 2017 7:33 pm

Well, right now they don't charge them at all. So Mafiascum doesn't get charged by Verizon, Comcast, ATT, Charter, etc. when you use the site. Which is a good thing.
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #11424  (isolation #252)  » Tue Jan 24, 2017 10:24 am

You know that's not what he's saying.
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #11451  (isolation #253)  » Tue Jan 24, 2017 3:13 pm

In post 11447, Fluminator wrote:At least Trump has finally done one good thing in accepting keystone. (Which is both economically and environmentally better in the long run.)


I get economically, but how is it environmentally better?
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #11464  (isolation #254)  » Tue Jan 24, 2017 5:11 pm

In post 11461, Fluminator wrote:Anyway, I have a minor in Petroleum Energy (in Alberta where the oilsands are) so if you have any questions I can tell you what I understand of it when I get back.
P:edit
1. uhhhh
2. uhhhh
3. Like it or not, 40% of your oil is imported from Canada, so you may as well go with the transportation method that is least bad.
4. Sure, I've even visited some places, but I can pull some for you hang on.


Fair enough. Are the oilsands economically feasible without the lower cost transportation of oil with the pipeline?
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #12181  (isolation #255)  » Thu Feb 02, 2017 12:58 am

Then place a bet and win a lot
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #12221  (isolation #256)  » Sat Feb 04, 2017 6:02 pm

Where'd you put them in relation to them?
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #12241  (isolation #257)  » Sun Feb 05, 2017 11:19 am

In post 12240, LlamaFluff wrote:Since start of the month its been odd for betting. Trump being impeached now pays more (less likely) and Trump resigning pays way less (more likely).

Most sites seem to be leveling off at around a 33% chance he fails to serve first term in full with resignation being the most likely way it ends (around 60-40 between the two). I would agree with resignation over impeachment due to his ego. I would almost put Trump trying to organize some military/militia takeover before he gets impeached.


Those odds seem substantially off to me. For one thing, resignation should always be more likely than impeachment. Anyone who has impeachment proceedings going against them and thinks it will succeed will likely resign, as Nixon did.

Second, impeachment is tough and comes at the potential price of blowback, as the Republicans found with Bill Clinton.

Third, impeachment has a heavy dose of partisanship to it. To get impeached, Trump would have to do one of two things that seem unlikely: (1) piss off his own party that he has up until now largely captured enough that they contemplate impeachment and believe they have a pass from their own constituencies or (2) Democrats take the House and Senate. 2018 is going to be a tough year for Democrats to make much headway in the Senate.

For what it's worth, I don't see a higher likelihood than 10-15% Trump doesn't make it to the end of his term. I'd have to get pretty good odds to lock up money on a betting site for four years though.
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #12243  (isolation #258)  » Sun Feb 05, 2017 11:38 am

I'm surprised death isn't an option for that "did not finish." Donald Trump is 70, and while it's not particularly likely, it seems just as likely as impeachment if not more so.
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #12878  (isolation #259)  » Tue Feb 21, 2017 4:51 pm

Pardon?
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #12891  (isolation #260)  » Tue Feb 21, 2017 5:17 pm

Jeffrey Tambor should play Franco in a movie.
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #12937  (isolation #261)  » Wed Feb 22, 2017 1:43 pm

.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #12979  (isolation #262)  » Thu Feb 23, 2017 12:25 pm

Let me redirect you to an entire thread relating to Accountant's idiosyncratic philosophy: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=69492
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #13263  (isolation #263)  » Thu Mar 02, 2017 10:55 am

In post 13241, Kublai Khan wrote:@zor (resident ms legal expert) - That means that Sessions committed perjury, yes?


Elements of Perjury in Federal Law:

1. Federal Proceeding Under Oath - Senate confirmation hearings are definitely this.
2. Materiality- "A false statement is material if it has "a natural tendency to influence, or is capable of influencing, the decision of the decision-making body to which it was addressed." - It's a direct answer to the question asked, so it'd be hard to argue that it wasn't material to the decision-making process. I suppose Sessions could argue that the question was about connections between Trump's campaign and the Russians and he just had some casual conversations as a Senator, but if it actually went to trial, it'd be a pretty weak argument.
3. Specific Intent. Sessions would have had to make the false statement with the knowledge of its falsity. In other words, he knew he was lying when he said it. We don't prosecute for perjury simply for being incorrect, after all. This is probably Sessions' best argument: I talked to a lot of ambassadors and what not in the course of my time as a Senator, forgot about some inconsequential Russian ambassador visits.

Overall, I'd say he fulfills the requirements for perjury. I'm doubtful he'll ever be prosecuted for it and if he is getting a conviction can be tricky.
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #13265  (isolation #264)  » Thu Mar 02, 2017 11:09 am

In post 13265, Katsuki wrote:That's interesting. I would have thought based on the context of the question and his response, it'd be hard to win a conviction for perjury on the basis of what you outlined in 2) and 3). In the specific context of 2), would the prosecution not have to prove that the contact/conversation he had with the Russians pertained to the campaign or demonstrate some link that it was outside of the capacity of his position as a senator at least?


I've watched the video a number of times. If he had answered the question with a simple no, the context of the question might have led to some legitimate ambiguity. But Sessions makes a larger claim when he says, “I have been called a surrogate at a time or two in that campaign and I did not have communications with the Russians.”

It's still perjury if you say something broader than the question asked. If I'm on the witness stand and I'm asked "did you talk to Tina on June 8th?" and I answer "No. I didn't even know Tina." then my false statement that I didn't know Tina is still perjury if I knew it was false when I said it despite not being asked about that.

As I said, securing a conviction is often hard. I have no idea what would happen if it went to trial.
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #13270  (isolation #265)  » Thu Mar 02, 2017 11:48 am

In post 13269, Firebringer wrote:wait I am thinking libel.


Yeah, even defamation (libel, slander) only requires that element if the person defamed is a public figure.
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #13271  (isolation #266)  » Thu Mar 02, 2017 11:53 am

In post 13267, Katsuki wrote:Well if we were to simply focus on the phrase "I did not have communications with the Russians" then sure. Unfortunately for him, he seems to have bungled with his wording and stated something different from what he meant to convey. But for that simple statement even if technically false it seems difficult that you could successfully mount a case against it.

Based on the clip that Psyche shared though it seemed that the question was something entirely different and without having seen the whole thing, no idea how the conversation led to Sessions making that particular statement in that context because it certainly was not a yes/no question or even specific to Sessions' relationship with the Russians.


I can only give my opinion on whether he met the elements to commit perjury. I think it's relatively straightforward that he did, but not straightforward that he'd be convicted of it even if prosecution was brought.
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #13273  (isolation #267)  » Thu Mar 02, 2017 12:08 pm

It's pretty easy as long as you know or are willfully giving a false statement.

What I meant is that I can talk about perjury in a limited instance: did this meet it? And with that we're talking about a relatively narrow interpretation question that (hopefully) removes some political bias.

But if I start to talk about whether being dishonest about meetings with the Russian ambassador in a confirmation hearing where the nominating president's ties to Russia and Russia's influence on the election are in question, we're expanding the scope of the discussion in a way that might ultimately be more what we care about but is also far more subject to our own political takes.
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #13674  (isolation #268)  » Tue Mar 07, 2017 3:26 pm

My guess is that they'd be happy to release information about republicans but that their sources aren't interested in giving that information.
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #13717  (isolation #269)  » Thu Mar 09, 2017 3:55 pm

guys, there are threads for accountant's philosophy.
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #13849  (isolation #270)  » Tue Mar 14, 2017 8:27 pm

the white house released it ahead of her, i guess? Looks like he paid more than my effective tax rate!!! He's just like me!
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #14006  (isolation #271)  » Sun Mar 19, 2017 11:48 pm

In post 13987, Papa Zito wrote:
In post 13985, Kublai Khan wrote:
In post 13984, Accountant wrote:
In post 13982, Socrates wrote:Do tell. And leave no detail out.

Socreates was famous for asking people a lot of questions.

Wait, is this Socrates?
Image

COLUMBO IS THE BEST


Man I love Columbo. When I was sick from school as a kid I watched marathons of Columbo.
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #14332  (isolation #272)  » Wed Mar 22, 2017 3:16 pm

In post 14328, T S O wrote:Whenever there's a terror attack and they're intentionally vague about the attacker, you know that they're a Muslim.


I dunno. The Heidelberg thing had vague identities talked about, people speculated that he must be muslim. He was not.

It doesn't seem like some sort of poor decision to wait to confirm identity before making a statement on the possible motivations.
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #14343  (isolation #273)  » Wed Mar 22, 2017 3:35 pm

Like... if I had to hazard a guess, the perpetrator is likely muslim just because of how quickly the word "terrorism" was used here and the relative lack of white nationalist attacks in the UK overall (although it's not unheard of). But it's not like it's helpful to just wildly guess.
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #14375  (isolation #274)  » Wed Mar 22, 2017 8:19 pm

In post 14369, ɀefiend wrote:Daily reminder that "moderate" Muslims are a myth. Anyone that is claiming or perpetuating this is just practicing taqiyya. Islam is a danger to all, not just other religious groups. This includes atheists, skeptics, and sympathizers.



Perhaps you should get out more.
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #14376  (isolation #275)  » Wed Mar 22, 2017 8:21 pm

Like... a lot more.

You're a bigot.
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #14407  (isolation #276)  » Wed Mar 22, 2017 8:55 pm

In post 14384, ɀefiend wrote:
In post 14377, zoraster wrote:Like... a lot more.

You're a bigot.

Apologize.

I have friends who call themselves "Muslims." They don't agree with the gay stoning, the heathen destroying, the women controlling, the taqiyya, or Sharia law. In reality, they probably more closely align with a different religion than Islam. However, Islam forbids apostasy, punishable by death. Their family will find out. Their congregation will find out. Radicals and traditionalists will find out.

My statement stands -- "moderate Muslims" aren't even Muslims at all (at least in the strictest sense according to the Quran and Hadith). They might consider themselves a denomination. A true Muslim cannot be moderate because the actual tenets of Islam are horrid, savage, and extreme.


This is an insane way for an outsider to label people.

Like I get it if you're a zealot or something and you're a true believer, but if you're not, it's either crazy person talk or it's designed to reinforce a stereotype you find pleasing.
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #14421  (isolation #277)  » Wed Mar 22, 2017 10:02 pm

Like Organize It! 2: Engage With Zorp?
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #14834  (isolation #278)  » Wed Mar 29, 2017 12:06 pm

I don't understand the last criticism. She wasn't going to win any state, so if she's doing a recount why not do it in those where it may theoretically have made a difference to the winner? Plus I'd be curious to know how much money she raised vs. spent for those things.
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #14841  (isolation #279)  » Thu Mar 30, 2017 9:12 am

I'm not sure how serious Trump is. It's probably just a recognition that had he pretended to work with Dems to begin with, he could have cast more blame on them for the failure.

Not that that didn't stop him, but it's hard to assign blame when you didn't even give lip service to working with the other party.
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #15724  (isolation #280)  » Fri May 19, 2017 7:03 pm

It is nuts to me the lengths you will go to try to do this thing you do, Sesq. It's like you have dedicated your entire existence to explaining away things but without ever really finding something to engage with.
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #15734  (isolation #281)  » Fri May 19, 2017 7:23 pm

In post 15730, Sesq wrote:
In post 15725, zoraster wrote:It is nuts to me the lengths you will go to try to do this thing you do, Sesq. It's like you have dedicated your entire existence to explaining away things but without ever really finding something to engage with.


huh?


Look, you spend the vast majority of your time basically pooh poohing other people's thoughts. Sometimes growing up people's growing skepticism manifests itself as a sort of devil's advocate for everything -- I know because that's how I was as a kid (to no one's surprise, I'm sure). Maybe that's it.

But I think you need to take a long thing about what you personally believe. What you advocate for. What you think is true. Not what ISN'T true. Not what ISN'T your belief.

Because you go to extraordinary lengths to make other people back up their assertions even well past the point where they've done a comprehensive job doing so. It's almost as if you're under the mistaken belief that the absence of proof makes the OPPOSITE of the stated thing true. And you almost exclusively do this with what you perceive to be the consensus. I don't recall seeing you make much of an effort to question people who have idiosyncratic views.
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #15735  (isolation #282)  » Fri May 19, 2017 7:27 pm

In post 15732, theplague42 wrote:
In post 15725, zoraster wrote:It is nuts to me the lengths you will go to try to do this thing you do, Sesq. It's like you have dedicated your entire existence to explaining away things but without ever really finding something to engage with.

She's a great example of the new "rational centrists" or whatever you want to call them. Skepticism for the sake of skepticism, the answer is always in the middle, but just progressive enough to call themselves "liberal" because they grew up as gay marriage was legalized and Obama was elected.


Being a centrist isn't bad. But it can't be arrived at just because you think the average of two sides is the correct answer and that everyone is unfair to the other side.
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #16409  (isolation #283)  » Mon Jul 31, 2017 11:56 pm

In post 16408, Psyche wrote:by the way is there a way i can get this thing wo the paywall


you can use incognito mode for the washington post i think.
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #16419  (isolation #284)  » Thu Aug 03, 2017 4:05 pm

WVA governor switched parties. From Dems to GOP.
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #16422  (isolation #285)  » Thu Aug 03, 2017 4:44 pm

yeah. he was a republican before. still!
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #16425  (isolation #286)  » Thu Aug 03, 2017 5:22 pm

is that really the hope for WVA? Manchin won by pointedly not taking that route.
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #16449  (isolation #287)  » Fri Aug 04, 2017 7:22 pm

In post 16449, randomidget wrote:Ok cool so its basically just a delay on them

The major worry here is that trump fires sessions and then appoints an AG without the senate.
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #16808  (isolation #288)  » Mon Aug 28, 2017 9:25 am

In post 16804, talah wrote:
In post 16802, Psyche wrote:need it to participate in party activities, often including primaries that decide who the party will nominate to run for political office

Holy shit. Thanks.


This varies by state, by the by. Texas has no party registration required for primaries (though you can only vote in one per election). California has an "open primary" where every candidate is on the primary ballot (which sometimes leads to two Democrats being up for election in the regular election, as happened with the last Senate race).
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #16963  (isolation #289)  » Mon Nov 20, 2017 2:39 pm

In post 16960, T S O wrote:Graduate student forcefully reprimanded for showing a video of Jordan Peterson without taking a side. In the ensuing debacle, Bill C16 was referenced. Wasn't it zoraster who was confident that the bill would never be invoked to compel speech?


You are more than welcome to find where I did so. Otherwise I'm not going to spend my time figuring out what you mean.
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #16965  (isolation #290)  » Mon Nov 20, 2017 2:40 pm

On the other hand, I will return to this gem:

In post 4164, zoraster wrote:

In other news, I could watch this vine over and over and over and over.
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #16997  (isolation #291)  » Wed Jan 10, 2018 10:57 am

he's just playing the jug.

Image
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #17002  (isolation #292)  » Wed Jan 10, 2018 2:12 pm

merkel is fine. Trudeau, on the other hand. WTF? hold it by the stem, you monster! Macron, being french I suppose, knows how it's done.
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #17008  (isolation #293)  » Wed Jan 10, 2018 3:19 pm

also anyone who takes a drink while intensely staring into my eyes makes me feel uncomfortable.
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #17014  (isolation #294)  » Wed Jan 10, 2018 8:02 pm

what happens if there's no one around? do you look into a mirror? pull up a photograph on a computer?
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #17102  (isolation #295)  » Tue Jan 23, 2018 11:49 am

Trump/Republicans have created shareholder value by reducing taxes on corporations. Viewing that as "the economy" is foolish, though.
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #17177  (isolation #296)  » Sun Feb 04, 2018 4:31 pm

That vastly underestimates the power of the president.
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #17191  (isolation #297)  » Thu Feb 08, 2018 5:59 pm

I think there's a good chance he would have invaded Afghanistan, but I see little to suggest the intelligence failures of Bush that led to the invasion of Iraq would have occurred. And even if it did, I see little reason that would have led to a war that would have taken control over that country.
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #17270  (isolation #298)  » Mon Feb 26, 2018 10:12 am

In post 17265, Flubbernugget wrote:For reference, the SAS consider two pistol rounds to be able to incapacitate a terrorist that may be armored or drugged up.


Oh, I didn't realize that the guy who was stationed at Parkland was wearing assault gear and trained as part of an elite counter-terrorism force. I'm glad this comparison holds up!
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #17297  (isolation #299)  » Thu Mar 01, 2018 8:59 am

Rasmussen has been out by itself for a while. Either it knows something others don't or it's flawed.

This let's you compare presidents at this point in time: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/tr ... id=rrpromo
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #17299  (isolation #300)  » Thu Mar 01, 2018 10:12 am

At this point in his presidency? It's hard to make the argument that it's not historically low, at least in the modern era.

At this point there isn't a single president other than Trump who had a net approval rating below 0. Ford had a net approval below zero at one point (though not as low as Trump's) and Reagan's at this point was "only" +3.8 (the next lowest), but Trump has a net approval of -14.4. That's not even close.

That said, plenty of other presidents were lower at some point in their presidency (though not Obama, fwiw).
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #17301  (isolation #301)  » Thu Mar 01, 2018 10:27 am

That's fine, but irrelevant as to the historical nature of the rating except, I guess, to give it context.
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #17326  (isolation #302)  » Thu Mar 01, 2018 4:29 pm

In post 17320, TwoInAMillion wrote:The polls didn't take into account the electoral college, which they should have.


What? I think you may be unclear on how polls work.
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #17339  (isolation #303)  » Thu Mar 01, 2018 5:02 pm

In post 17328, TwoInAMillion wrote:No I do, there are polls that take into account the electoral college.

https://www.270towin.com/maps/crystal-b ... ge-ratings


I think this has been gone over, but that isn't a POLL. That's a prediction based on an analysis of polls. Sometimes these are done by people sometimes by systems. Plenty of places do that, 538, New York Times, etc.
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #17343  (isolation #304)  » Thu Mar 01, 2018 5:07 pm

Republicans were consistently behind in 2014? That's news to me.
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #17356  (isolation #305)  » Thu Mar 01, 2018 5:42 pm

Republicans have a fairly well established advantage in the electoral college that makes a split more likely to favor republicans than democrats. There are a variety of reasons for that, but few people would argue the point. It's not controversial. But everyone is taking that into account when they make predictions. And that doesn't change whether the polls are wrong at all.

Just like people are analyzing whether or not Democrats can take the House this year. If people thought they were going to win the total vote count by a point or two, most people would view that as having a very low chance of the democrats succeeding in taking the House. But because the predicted spread right now is higher, people think there's a chance it happens.
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #17376  (isolation #306)  » Fri Mar 02, 2018 10:33 am

In post 17376, T-Bone wrote:I actually like the electoral college system...just not as a winner-take-all. If we get rid of the electoral college, then only New York, California, and Texas will matter during presidential elections. I think having the votes proportional preserves the benefits of the system without giving way more advantage to people in less populated states.


I think the opposite happens. I think it substantially broadens the national nature of the campaign. It's possible that more candidate time might go to these populous states (though why we should dislike that more than them focusing on Ohio is a legitimate question), but the campaigns themselves likely expand.
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #17377  (isolation #307)  » Fri Mar 02, 2018 10:37 am

To put it another way, why is it so bad that candidates would suddenly want to focus on the greatest number of people? Isn't that what a national election should be?

And if it were decided proportionally with the electoral college, that still brings up the question of why if I moved to Wyoming, my voting power goes up 366%.
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #17379  (isolation #308)  » Fri Mar 02, 2018 10:47 am

That's probably more about the primary system. Whether we'd have the same primary system without the electoral college may be a question, but I think it's still likely.
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #17385  (isolation #309)  » Fri Mar 02, 2018 11:21 am

In post 17382, Flubbernugget wrote:On a less cynical note, let's say that a liberal presidential candidate pushes a massive pro-green campaign that involves EU-esque gas taxes. They only campaign in densely populated areas. That's great for the environment, but could absolutely destroy a lot of rural areas where public transportation may not be feasible. I don't think saying "well they're not the majority" is a fair assessment there.


The Senate is specifically designed to offer an anti-democratic counterbalance to that concern.
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #18039  (isolation #310)  » Sat Jun 30, 2018 11:39 am

the risk isn't that gay marriage is made illegal throughout the country, I don't think. it's that particular states don't allow it, or more likely allow it in name only (all attendant benefits not being given and SCOTUS saying that's okay).
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #18200  (isolation #311)  » Tue Jul 31, 2018 6:44 pm

In post 18196, Porkens wrote:Oh and the prices are Amazon (1,817.27) and Alphabet (1,239.50) today.


Should they split their stock? Absolute value of a stock doesn't mean anything.
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #18342  (isolation #312)  » Thu Aug 23, 2018 8:40 am

In post 18336, T-Bone wrote:
In post 18330, Maruchan wrote:
In post 18323, AniX wrote:Sure, in the same way the behavior of most politicians would get an ordinary person sent to jail. Political behavior has to be considered within its context or you end up with people like Trump who don't have a political corruption paper trail simply because they have never been in politics before and their crime paper trail is a little more private.

Depending on the context a crime isnt a crime?


At a certain income/influence level you become above most laws. Silly, you'd be discharged because you're expendable. There is only one Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Really, the only way you can fuck up and go to jail at her level...is if you try to keep the government from getting its cut.

Hence why the clowns who are being indicted are all being indicted based on finance. Manafort wasn't charged for the alleged illegal meeting he had with a Russian spy, but he has sure as hell been convicted of hiding money from the government.

Al Capone didn't go to jail for his alleged murders...but then he didn't pay his taxes and Uncle Sam won't have any of that.


Come on now. This isn't because Uncle Sam is ultra precious about taxes so much as it's often easier to prove these counts.
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #18343  (isolation #313)  » Thu Aug 23, 2018 8:49 am

In post 18339, hebichan wrote:Also a probable retrial for the 10 mistrialed charges.


They don't need to, and I doubt they will. People worry a lot about the number of charges or which get removed or whatever, but for the most part it's not going to affect sentencing greatly. Probably in the 8-10 year range based on the sentencing guidelines. The additional counts wouldn't have added greatly to that.
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #18354  (isolation #314)  » Thu Aug 23, 2018 12:40 pm

We'll see if the sentence is closer to my 8-10 or the "max 80 years" on the one side or "fine and community service" on the other (not happening, I promise). But keep in mind that the additional counts may not have added additional time in reality. I don't have any reason to believe Ellis is particularly likely to be overly lenient here, but the sentencing guidelines are what they are.
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #18364  (isolation #315)  » Thu Aug 23, 2018 2:41 pm

Once again, he will not get 80 years.
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #18368  (isolation #316)  » Thu Aug 23, 2018 4:05 pm

In post 18366, Kublai Khan wrote:Image


Sentences aren't typically given out by looking at the maximum and then adding all the maximums together.
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #18369  (isolation #317)  » Thu Aug 23, 2018 4:13 pm

If you're actually interested in the topic, take a look at the video here: https://www.ussc.gov/education/videos/a ... ple-counts (starts around 3:30)

also here: https://www.ussc.gov/education/training ... %C2%A73d12
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #18376  (isolation #318)  » Thu Aug 23, 2018 4:37 pm

In post 18371, Panzerjager wrote:I haven't been reading, what's your guess zoraster?

Why wouldn't they do 30?

Why wouldn't they do 80?


This isn't my area, and it's advisory anyway, but I've seen 8-10 and 7-10 be thrown around, but wouldn't be surprised to see more like the 20 year range (keep in mind he might well be sentenced concurrently so it sounds like a lot but then it's served concurrently so it doesn't matter, I'm not sure about these specific offenses).

That said, keep in mind that Manafort has a second trial coming up in DC on separate and likely less connected (and thus less likely to be "grouped") charges. Also, for someone who is 69, spending 7-10 years in prison is likely a big chunk of your life remaining and even more likely a big chunk of the "best" years remaining.

The big issue to me isn't what he's sentenced for (any of the range above would be fine to me) but whether Trump decides to pardon him.
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #18377  (isolation #319)  » Thu Aug 23, 2018 4:37 pm

In post 18374, shaft.ed wrote:but didnt Gates testify that he helped Manafort commit bank fraud
why would Gates lie about that?


To get a reduced sentence. Obviously that's not what happened (I mean that's why he testified but I don't think he lied), but there is sometimes some incentive to make things up.
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #18390  (isolation #320)  » Fri Aug 24, 2018 8:31 am

In post 18389, IceGuy wrote:
In post 18388, rb wrote:judges can decide whether multiple sentences are served consecutively or concurrently and they rarely choose the former


That makes even less sense though. You get sentenced on five counts to five years each, serve them concurrently, than all but one conviction gets overturned and your sentence is still the same.


Welcome to the world of sentencing.

Better yet, say you're acquitted of some serious crimes but found guilty on some lesser counts. The judge can use "acquitted conduct" to increase the sentencing of the non-serious ones by using the conduct from the acquitted ones.

ABA wrote:No fact about federal criminal practice so consistently astounds and frequently disgusts the uninitiated, lawyers and non-lawyers alike, as the fact that you can be imprisoned for decades based on conduct that a jury finds you not guilty of committing. Such a seemingly unfair and incongruous outcome is possible and not uncommon thanks to the concept of acquitted conduct sentencing, which is codified in and, to a certain extent, required by the United States Sentencing Guidelines. While the Supreme Court has so far declined to directly address the constitutionality of acquitted conduct sentencing, courts of appeals have taken the Court’s silence as approval and uniformly affirmed the constitutionality of sentences based largely on acquitted conduct since the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Watts, 519 U.S. 148 (1997), which approved acquitted conduct sentencing but failed to adequately address the constitutional concerns.
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #18410  (isolation #321)  » Fri Aug 24, 2018 4:25 pm

The US does have long and punitive sentences compared to other first world countries. But touch the fire and you're going to get burnt. You could have used any number of examples other than the one you did. You clearly don't actually know the details behind it, but you dove headfirst anyway and then started wildly swinging even when it became clear you lacked the details. I'm not blaming you for not having the full facts: I'm blaming you for opening what is still a pretty fresh wound for internet argument points.
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #18447  (isolation #322)  » Wed Aug 29, 2018 9:11 am

In post 18446, Frozen Angel wrote:Did Trump really say "I remember Pearl Harbor" to the Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe?


It's ridiculous, but apparently. That said, Shinzo Abe does make a pointed attempt to reimagine history.
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #18498  (isolation #323)  » Thu Sep 06, 2018 12:39 pm

In post 18497, Lycanfire wrote:Strange that 538 put an old story they wrote on anonymous sources in journalism on the front page last night and removed it this morning. Nate seems pretty miffed about the op-ed drop.

Maybe ABC told him he had to remove it.

Article for anyone curious


They republished it when the woodward book came out. I think they thought the message might be confused since the story became more about the op-ed article instead.

But yes, I don't think Nate Silver thought it was handled well, judging by his twitter. It puts the newsroom in a really weird position where they're supposed to be digging in to find the anonymous source, but that's directly at odds with the editorial section which has promised anonymity.
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #18602  (isolation #324)  » Mon Oct 29, 2018 9:23 am

probably a decent way to do a high school paper, but probably not a super way to win an essay contest.
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #18637  (isolation #325)  » Tue Nov 27, 2018 10:56 am

NPR isn't international and it doesn't receive any direct federal government funding. https://web.archive.org/web/20120319015 ... ances.html

Individual stations are owned separately and don't broadcast only NPR stuff.
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #19034  (isolation #326)  » Fri Jan 18, 2019 9:48 am

In post 19033, talah wrote:Let me get this straight - because I'm sure I've heard Judge Judy or Gordon Ramsay or my mum say this doesn't quite work.

Not saying the info is incorrect - just pointing out the obvious interest.

A company who was hired to do something illegal and accepted that contract to do something illegal is now arguing that their liability for that illegal act was mitigated because the person who hired them to perform the illegal act did not pay them the full amount?

I'm struggling to understand how the company gets out ahead here unless they've already made a plea deal.
Granted this is not -precisely- the same, but if you get hired to murder someone, and then kill the person, you don't get to reduce your liability by arguing that you didn't get paid the full amount agreed.

What the actual fuck is happening here.


I'm not positive, but I believe the illegal act was the campaign finance violation, not the actual "rigging" the poll. The violation was on the part of Cohen, spending campaign funds, not on the part of the company hired. It may or may not be illegal to "rig" a poll in the way indicated, but at question are these violations, not the sleaziness of rigging an online poll.
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #19036  (isolation #327)  » Fri Jan 18, 2019 10:25 am

In post 19036, talah wrote:
In post 19035, zoraster wrote:I'm not positive, but I believe the illegal act was the campaign finance violation, not the actual "rigging" the poll. The violation was on the part of Cohen, spending campaign funds, not on the part of the company hired. It may or may not be illegal to "rig" a poll in the way indicated, but at question are these violations, not the sleaziness of rigging an online poll.


I don't think it would matter much because that just gets them out of the hot water and into the fire.
Unless rigging poll results has nothing to do with influencing voters.

Well I guess if they only got half the money to rig the poll results it's all good.

or... wtf?


A television advertisement is an attempt to influence voters. That's not illegal on its own.

And I haven't gone through the WSJ paywall, but I didn't see anything that said they weren't at fault because they only received half the money. That's just part of the story.
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #19039  (isolation #328)  » Fri Jan 18, 2019 11:00 am

That is indeed how the law works.
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #19052  (isolation #329)  » Wed Jan 23, 2019 11:29 am

I think the margarine thing might fall afoul of regulations, but "best x" has always been found to be "mere puffery"
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #19053  (isolation #330)  » Wed Jan 23, 2019 11:32 am

In post 19049, talah wrote:My boss may have told me that if I am taking a course on the job which will give me higher pay if I finish it, that it doesn't matter if I finish it sooner because everyone gets the raise at the end of the year.
Then other workers can finish it sooner and get a pay raise and tell me about it, and when I am confused I raise it at a staff meeting, that same boss can say he never said that.

And that doesn't matter because lying doesn't *really* matter. Right?
Even if there were others that agree that the boss said that?


Did you get paid less?
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #19107  (isolation #331)  » Fri Feb 01, 2019 8:20 pm

In post 19103, YellowSnow wrote:liberals do want to tax the rich, if they could have a 20% tax on millionaires and have it signed into law they would, why don't they just admit it?


1. An income of 1m a year isn't "just" a millionaire. Someone making 80k a year can become a millionaire eventually. A million a year is pretty darn high.
2. The top tax bracket, passed by a Republican Senate, House and President is 37%. They don't get taxed that much, mind you, but the idea that liberals are secretly plotting to tax the rich a bit is false because it's overt, and I don't think anyone would apologize for that.
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #19109  (isolation #332)  » Fri Feb 01, 2019 8:25 pm

Yes, that's what I'm saying. You said "why won't they just admit it" as if they're hiding the ball. No one is doing that.
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #19116  (isolation #333)  » Fri Feb 01, 2019 8:33 pm

In post 19112, YellowSnow wrote:Because of statements like "no one wants to punish the rich".


It isn't punishing the rich to progressively tax their earnings. Given you stated a 20% tax on someone making a million dollars as something absurd, I think we might have to review how marginal tax rates work: you understand that earning more money doesn't end up in you ever having less money because of taxes, right?
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #19148  (isolation #334)  » Fri Feb 01, 2019 9:00 pm

In post 19129, Creature wrote:or the classic:

If you gotta pay $10 for someone to profit $3 from a 70% marginal rate, how much would you pay for someone to keep that profit of $3 on a 90% marginal rate?


marginal tax rates can create different incentives, certainly.

Let's say you have a company of 101 people (including yourself) that you own a majority share of and lead. Let's say you could choose to (a) pay yourself 20m a year and pay your employees 50k a year or (b) pay yourself 10m and pay your employees 150k a year. With today's income tax brackets may (a) gives you just shy of 13m comp and (b) gives you 6.3m. You care about your employees wellbeing, but the 6.7m difference is just too much to turn away so you pick (a). But let's say you used today's tax brackets but put in the suggested 10m at 70% tax bracket. Situation (a) gives you ~9.5m and (b) gives you the same 6.3m. Suddenly maybe that 3.2m difference isn't quite enough and you realize that the efficiency of your money is better spent on your employees.

Or say you're not into employees getting more money. Maybe it incentivizes charitable giving. Or reinvestment in the company. Etc.
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #19753  (isolation #335)  » Thu Mar 14, 2019 11:48 pm

It's only confusing if we are imprecise with language. The only veto taking place is Trump's on the bill. Nothing else is a "veto" because that has a very specific meaning.

The vote is to prevent Trump from using his national emergency powers to funnel money to the wall. They aren't vetoing what he did because only the president vetoes things. They can override a veto, but we only get to confusing territory if we decide to get clever and start calling everything a veto.
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #19797  (isolation #336)  » Mon Mar 18, 2019 9:23 am

oh are we talking about Jexodus? Or for those not in the know, Exodus but for Jews?
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #19815  (isolation #337)  » Mon Mar 25, 2019 10:38 pm

good lord
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #19850  (isolation #338)  » Thu Mar 28, 2019 9:25 am

In post 19846, Mina wrote:Jesus, people. As if this argument weren't absurd enough, he's not LITERALLY homeless. He obviously meant his political beliefs didn't have a home in either major party.


I'm pretty sure the article meant he was literally homeless.

In post 19847, Mina wrote:Also, much as I know lots of people (disproportionately related to me) who not only agree with Homeless Jason but have run gleefully into conservatism's arms as a kneejerk reaction to the BDS crowd, like AniX said, an NY Post article with a few anecdotes does not prove a trend. But I have a very strong suspicion GrandWazoo is not motivated by sincere concern for that "powerful moneyed constituency." Mind you, if someone wants to send some of that power and money my way, please let me know. Maybe it's like high school again, and no one ever invites me to the secret cabal meetings.


It deeply bothers me the willingness the left is to engage in anti-semitism. The problem is people using legitimate criticism of Israel (which has not made thing easy!) as cover to blame Jews generally. One way to tell is if someone starts to question Jewish people's allegiance to their country vs. to Israel, which is why Tlaib's comments are seen as anti-semitic.
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #19852  (isolation #339)  » Thu Mar 28, 2019 11:53 am

okay. rereading it you're right. it's clearly meant to be a metaphor.
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #19870  (isolation #340)  » Sat Mar 30, 2019 2:40 pm

In post 19866, Kublai Khan wrote:
In post 19865, Flubbernugget wrote:
In post 19857, Kublai Khan wrote:
In post 19856, Flubbernugget wrote:
In post 19844, Kublai Khan wrote:Someone who is a community leader among the Jews, like maybe a rabbi?

No

No?

Okay.

Jews are not a single unified community one leader can speak for. There's at least 5 ways off the top of my head that the populations are subgrouped and there's a lot of unclean overlap between them. At least one of those groups has a very strong preference towards individualism, which is extremely difficult for a unified leader to speak on behalf of.

Ultimately any time Jews get mentioned in politics they're going to get cherry picked to push a narrative.

So what you're saying is that Rabbis aren't leaders among any type of Jewish community.


On matters that don't touch religious issues, do you really expect a Catholic Priest to speak for Catholics? Also there's the issue of jewish people being an ethnicity/heritage/etc as well as a religion in a way most don't.
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #19877  (isolation #341)  » Tue Apr 02, 2019 10:42 am

April Politics Pulse Check

I'll do this maybe 3-4 more times before the election, so your opinions CAN (and maybe should!) change.
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #19880  (isolation #342)  » Wed Apr 03, 2019 11:30 pm

you'd think that would be a no-brainer but...
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #19882  (isolation #343)  » Thu Apr 04, 2019 9:12 am

In post 19882, shaft.ed wrote:isn't Warren the only one that has done this

Still waiting on Bernie's taxes
from the 2016 campaign

don't know why people think he's a populist



Gillibrand's 2018, Klobuchar back to 2006, Inslee has released a ton, Elizabeth Warren hasn't released 2018 yet but as she did the 10 years prior and it's not April 15th yet she may not have filed yet...

But yeah, Sanders has indicated he's going to release 10 years of tax returns soon. But he said that they were coming soon back in February so...
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #19884  (isolation #344)  » Thu Apr 04, 2019 7:48 pm

in what way?
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #20449  (isolation #345)  » Sat May 18, 2019 9:07 am

one of the things that continually amuses me about the alt-right is the portrayal of donald trump as a hyper-masculine, super buff dude who is going to personally take on foes with his weapons and bare hands, despite being a draft-dodging 72-year-old fat man who primarily plays golf.
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #20649  (isolation #346)  » Mon Jun 24, 2019 9:56 am

It's kind of infuriating to have these discussions because (1) "I got mine through only my own hard work" and "everyone could do it if they'd just try" are both such pernicious lies (2) six-figures (i.e. $100k) isn't usually the major line that left policy-makers target as the turning point between, say, the redistributed from and the redistributed to. (3) Adding on to that, squabbling between those making 50k a year and those make 150k a year is only helpful to those who either make $1M+ a year or (more powerfully) those who don't "make" much of anything because they are already incredibly wealthy.

Because the guy making $150k a year has quite a lot in common with the person making $50k a year and not that much in common with the person whose net wealth is $100M and who can easily live off that without ever even touching the principal of that amount.
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #20675  (isolation #347)  » Mon Jun 24, 2019 10:46 am

Necessary but not sufficient.
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #20677  (isolation #348)  » Mon Jun 24, 2019 10:54 am

is that bright line definition actually important to your understanding of his argument?
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #20765  (isolation #349)  » Mon Jul 01, 2019 6:27 pm

take the politics pulsecheck! viewtopic.php?f=6&t=80199
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #20771  (isolation #350)  » Tue Jul 09, 2019 9:09 am

it's always striking to me how pre-1970s how high acceptance rates were to even ivy league schools.
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #21301  (isolation #351)  » Thu Aug 01, 2019 9:49 am

because there was some discussion of this earlier, this is an interesting little survey.

I'm sure people have seen such things before but: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 ... -rich.html

As a 34-year-old on my next birthday I suddenly go way down the percentiles!
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #21303  (isolation #352)  » Thu Aug 01, 2019 11:13 am

keep in mind that it's by age group. change it to 35-64, Equinox, and you'll see the top 5% is 498k in SF.

Mountain View, Sunnyvale, etc. are in their own geographic area with San Jose that is richer than SF.
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #21307  (isolation #353)  » Thu Aug 01, 2019 4:15 pm

In post 21305, Flubbernugget wrote:
In post 21303, zoraster wrote:keep in mind that it's by age group. change it to 35-64, Equinox, and you'll see the top 5% is 498k in SF.

Mountain View, Sunnyvale, etc. are in their own geographic area with San Jose that is richer than SF.

This is still surprising because there's a lot of age discrimination in tech coupled with the high pay


Probably, but your average 42-year-old in big tech is going to earn more than your average 25-year-old. Plus, if you do age out of tech, you probably don't want to still live here, leaving those who are particularly well compensated.
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #21308  (isolation #354)  » Thu Aug 01, 2019 4:18 pm

In post 21304, Flubbernugget wrote:Is living alone a luxury? Im looking to move out on my own and flipping between individual and household bumps me up by 25%-ish points


It certainly costs more, on a per person basis, to live alone than it does with another person.
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #21325  (isolation #355)  » Tue Aug 06, 2019 4:34 pm

I think the law is pretty much a travesty, and I'm embarrassed the state is trying it.
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #21334  (isolation #356)  » Wed Aug 07, 2019 1:21 pm

In post 21332, theplague42 wrote:
In post 21325, zoraster wrote:I think the law is pretty much a travesty, and I'm embarrassed the state is trying it.

Why? I'm not in favor of it because I don't like adding barriers to running for office; I just think the "political attack" line essentially admits that Trump is not transparent.



People should have the ability to vote for a candidate who has a possibility of winning the election. This is pretty fundamental for the legitimacy of our democratic society.
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #21340  (isolation #357)  » Thu Aug 08, 2019 8:24 am

In post 21339, talah wrote:Don't try to game the system, Zor


Pardon?
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #21341  (isolation #358)  » Thu Aug 08, 2019 8:26 am

In post 21335, chamber wrote:Maybe I misunderstand the law, but it wouldn't preclude him being voted for, only being a printed option on the primary ballot right? And that's if he continues to refuse to release his tax returns.


If we start going down the road of "oh you can always write in someone" as a response to people being removed from a ballot for reasons other than the necessity of keeping the ballot length manageable (e.g. a doable number of signatures, a nominal filing fee, etc.) we're in deep trouble.
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #21361  (isolation #359)  » Fri Aug 09, 2019 5:42 pm

Yes it's organizations with money, but it's all about issue salience in the end.
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #21362  (isolation #360)  » Fri Aug 09, 2019 5:58 pm

My in-a-vacuum policy preferences on the subject are fairly extreme in terms of US politics on guns, but at the end of the day would I vote against my other policy preferences to achieve it? That's questionable. And I certainly wouldn't to achieve the half-ass policies that are proposed that will help, if at all, on the margins.

So the issue has fairly low salience for me. But there are a small minority who feel passionately about the issue and absolutely will vote on that basis. And a rational politician can look at a generally popular measure but that will lose him or her votes and think "why should I spend my political capital pushing this through?"
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #21678  (isolation #361)  » Sat Aug 17, 2019 5:01 pm

If the police were held accountable for their actions both professionally, criminally and civilly it wouldn't really be that much of an issue. The idea that people should just resist the police when they interpret the law in a different way seems wrongheaded. The issue is that the police can do something, like force you to stop filming them despite having every right to do so, and suffer absolutely no repercussions.
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #21878  (isolation #362)  » Wed Aug 21, 2019 12:53 pm

In post 21871, James Brafin wrote:Article 1 says noting about raising armies. That's an awfully big assumption you're making there.
Besides, I'm not sure what your point is here. If the military is not the militia, then by Amendment #2, they have no right to bear arms, no matter WHO gives them to them. That act is unconstitutional.


Just because you don't have a right to do something doesn't mean you are prohibited from doing that thing, absent some sort of law against it.
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #23258  (isolation #363)  » Fri Oct 25, 2019 10:27 am

I saw those guys when I was skiing there a couple of years ago!

It made me laugh but I'm still not sure where they intend the wall to go. The comparison would put it between Vail and Aspen, but that's not the direction traffic goes (Vail is along I70 and a couple hours closer to Denver).
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #23433  (isolation #364)  » Thu Nov 14, 2019 10:33 am

yeah i don't have a good handle on what's an appropriate speaker fee for a college political party group. But clearly the members didn't feel this was one?
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #23436  (isolation #365)  » Thu Nov 14, 2019 10:56 am

I would assume so.
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #23583  (isolation #366)  » Wed Jan 08, 2020 2:17 pm

bernie got like 40% of the vote. Yang will get like... 3% nationwide with a few passionate caucus states giving him outliers.
.

zoraster
Disorganized Crime
 
User avatar
Joined: June 10, 2008
Location: Sunnyvale, CA
Pronoun: He

Post Post #23599  (isolation #367)  » Fri Jan 10, 2020 11:54 am

yeah i hate those types of interviews. I feel like I'm relatively well versed in what's happening in politics and if you shoved a microphone up in my face and asked me a simple question without me having a moment to collect myself, I'd probably fumble or lean on trite talking points too.
.

Previous
[ + ]

Return to General Discussion