Politics: The Undiscovered Country

[Malcador]

On 9/16/2019 at 4:30 AM, Guard Dog said:

Of course. If you don't like someones politics then it's good they die right? We're not quite a nation of heartless savages... yet. Getting there though. 

Nah, already been there - you used to have pretty large segments a-ok with lynching people, after all.  So humming 'Another One Bites the Dust' when someone you dislike dies is pretty tame.  Everyone has that special person they'd like to see in a ditch, right ? 

For a funny example look at the celebrations when Thatcher died

[Maedhros]

So it's a problem when people are happy about someone they don't like dying - but not when billionaires use their wealth in a way that's inarguably detrimental to mankind? Be it Koch, Exxon and whoever else who tried to discredit important science to make more money - or the Saudi state financing fundamentalist mosques.

One is petty, the other is evil, whether misguided or deliberate.

 

[Gfted1]

Speaking of petty and evil, how bout that NY Times article about Kavanaugh? Luckily it was only an "opinion piece" and was retracted days later after some facts were "accidentally" edited out and government officials were calling for his impeachment. Thank your god for freedom of the press! Theyre here for YOU! :winkypoo:

[213374U]

2 hours ago, Guard Dog said:

It's his money. If he wants to spend it to advance an idea it's his business. It does not make it true and it does not compel anyone to believe it. And even if they did it wouldn't make it true BECAUSE they believe it. 

[...]

In all seriousness if we have reached the point where we wish death on someone for exercising free speech even if we think it's wrong then we're already half way down the slippery slope to a bad place. 

So propaganda has no effect, then? History is chock full of examples that you can sell ideas that may range from slightly untrue to complete fabrication to large groups of people simply through repetition. The potential pernicious effects of leading large swathes of population to believe falsehoods are almost as plain to any casual reader of history. Randian mumbo-jumbo and power fantasies notwithstanding, the thought process is generally not governed by volition.

And also, like the Supreme Court, you effectively equate money with free speech. That's a perversion, regardless of legal gymnastics.

That being said, I agree that it's his money to spend as he pleases. Doesn't mean I have to approve of the ways he spends it simply because he has a right to do so, or regret the death of any individuals simply because they abided by the letter of the law in life. The -externally imposed by the government you so hate- law and my own moral code aren't always aligned.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

So Koch can spend his life spreading propaganda and directly influencing da big gubbermint in ways that will almost certainly make it harder for my (hypothetical) kids to survive in a world where food scarcity, extreme weather, and geopolitical crisis are exacerbated by rising temperatures, all so he can make more money, and the real villains are the ones who are glad he's dead? Then **** it I'm a villain.

[ShadySands]

I'm on the Kochs are evil side but I didn't want to publicly celebrate one or both of their deaths. I'm sure they maybe had some one that probably loved them who might be grieving. 

I can't seeing anyone defending the legacy that's been left behind though

Spoiler

 

 

[Gfted1]

Whats the big deal? Media spend their entire lives spreading rumors and innuendo, with a global reach, which will almost certainly make it harder for the populous to discern factual from fantasy. And we LOVE THEM FOR IT!

[Gromnir]

2 hours ago, 213374U said:

 

And also, like the Supreme Court, you effectively equate money with free speech. That's a perversion, regardless of legal gymnastics.

 

this is complete wrong, but the misunderstanding is easy to arrive at given cases such as citizens united. 

commercial speech gets a lower standard o' review than ordinary speech.

furthermore, the Court has always taken a rather jaundiced view o' money when is time for the government to explain how their response to speech limits is appropriate-- cost, even exorbitant amounts, don't sway the Court.

that said, political speech is the one kinda expression where the Court has defended speaker rights perhaps to the point o' functional violating voting rights. the Court doesn't care 'bout money, to the point they is often willful dismissive o' the import o' money, when fundamental rights is at issue. if a union wants to spend their money supporting a candidate by buying tv commercials or print ads, so be it. from a Constitutional perspective, how is different if one guy advocates with his money as 'posed to a union? 'course we got pacs and super pacs and lobbyists and...

elizabeth warren, for all our recent criticism, has advocated a Constitutional Amendment which would put limits on political spending, and we agree such is desirable. the bipartisan campaign reform act o 2002 were needed in 2002 'cause spending were getting outta control and 'cause o' the disproportionate influence o' various sources o' media has on the political process, media which is most immediate accessible through money. such a law is even more necessary in 2019. unfortunate, the text o' the Constitution is unambiguous and is hard to argue the Court is churning out bad decisions in support o' political speech.  

am avoiding addressing minutiae related to polling place or day-o'-election restrictions on political speech as it unnecessarily confuses the topic. nevertheless am mentioning 'cause the Court does restrain even political speech in limited situations. however, is never 'bout money from Court pov, which is kinda an antiquated and borderline obtuse perspective given realities o' today.

regardless, number's observation is either wrong or a gross oversimplification, which makes it wrong in either event.

HA! Good Fun!

ps we reread and am realizing main point may have gotten lost. Court doesn't equate money and free speech. commercial speech exception is only possible 'cause Court is so dismissive o' money. the Justices, as improbable as it may seem to most folks, do not see money as a particular important factor in Constitutional jurisprudence. money is only consequential when it affects other fundamental rights.

Edited September 17, 2019 by Gromnir
comma fail and clarification

[Elerond]

17 hours ago, Volourn said:

"EU court had ruled were illegal. "

 

I don't take Nazi courts seriously.

EU doesn't have court that rules anything to be legal or illegal

[Gromnir]

16 minutes ago, Elerond said:

EU doesn't have court that rules anything to be legal or illegal

if any arguable authority figure does something vol don't like, is getting the nazi label. nazi is vol's board kink.

HA! Good Fun!

[213374U]

23 minutes ago, Gromnir said:

this is complete wrong, but the misunderstanding is easy to arrive at given cases such as citizens united. 

Not just Citizens United, but Buckley v. Valeo, where the Court introduced the idea that restricting independent expenditures on political campaigns constituted a violation of the Free Speech Clause, because apparently, any political advocacy requires that money is spent. Ergo, (spent) money is speech. It's a colloquial expression, not a rigorous categorical declaration and I know better than to become entangled in a lengthy discussion of the finer legal points. Which is why I said "effectively" and not "literally".

Did super PACs exist in James Madison's time?

[Gromnir]

Just now, 213374U said:

Not just Citizens United, but Buckley v. Valeo, where the Court introduced the idea that restricting independent expenditures on political campaigns constituted a violation of the Free Speech Clause, because apparently, any political advocacy requires that money is spent. Ergo, (spent) money is speech. It's a colloquial expression, not a rigorous categorical declaration and I know better than to become entangled in a lengthy discussion of the finer legal points. Which is why I said "effectively" and not "literally".

Did super PACs exist in James Madison's time?

read our ps 'cause am sensing point got lost. Court do not equate free speech with money, literal or effective or figurative. the Court is dismissive o' money. money is incidental and only has import when it touches 'pon some other fundamental right.

can't cherry pick decisions as you read 'em w/o understanding the reasoning behind those decisions.

can read "Congress shall make no law..." in 2019 so that there is an exception for super pacs? 'course super pacs didn't exist in madison's time, but neither did airports or smartphones. is an intellectual dead end to ask what were the realities in 1787 or 1866. thankfully, the Court don't do that. regardless, the text o' the first Amendment, read in 1787, 1866 or 2019 is broad, unequivocal and offers little in the way o' exception. change the meaning o' the Constitution everytime culture or technology changes would make the Constitution meaningless as a document o' guiding principles and enduring law. 

HA! Good Fun!

ps 1866 is a relevant date 'cause is arguable the first amendment only applied to the Fed until the reconstruction amendments were written/adopted. 'course we haven't had much luck explaining incorporation in the past, so is probable best left for another post or thread.

 

[Hurlshort]

7 hours ago, Guard Dog said:

It's his money. If he wants to spend it to advance an idea it's his business. It does not make it true and it does not compel anyone to believe it. And even if they did it wouldn't make it true BECAUSE they believe it. 

It's a problem when we begin to be happy someone died because they thought "wrong". If someone like that with money and "wrong" thoughts is so dangerous that we're happy they died maybe we shouldn't wait for nature to take it's course. Maybe we should all just kill the bastard and be done with it? Of course that would be murder so we'll have to have some kind of trial first. Then kill him. Not a criminal trial. They are not breaking the law after all. But it should sound legit. Hmmmm.... what's the latin word for "investigation"?

In all seriousness if we have reached the point where we wish death on someone for exercising free speech even if we think it's wrong then we're already half way down the slippery slope to a bad place. 

I don't wish death on anyone, of course, but there is a very real possibility that future generations will look at these guys as worse than tyrants and mass murderers. They made billions with little regard to environmental impact, then used those billions to stifle any actual investigations that were being attempted. They committed major environmental crimes, then used the profits from those crimes to buy politicians and influence. 

Their carbon footprint is the size of a dinosaur killing asteroid. They have jeopardized future generations. None of that has to do with thought or speech. They physically damaged the planet. We all do, but they did it best. For that they are held up as pioneers of business, and I just don't think that will hold up in a couple generation when we can't breath the air. You are making me sound like a raving environmentalist GD.

[HoonDing]

I agree Koch Media is very evil.

Edited September 17, 2019 by HoonDing

[Gromnir]

14 hours ago, Gfted1 said:

Speaking of petty and evil, how bout that NY Times article about Kavanaugh? Luckily it was only an "opinion piece" and was retracted days later after some facts were "accidentally" edited out and government officials were calling for his impeachment. Thank your god for freedom of the press! Theyre here for YOU! :winkypoo:

well, yes, thank goodness. The Press (*eye-roll*) caught the mistake by nyt and the opinion piece 'bout a book release were corrected in less than 24 hours. if not for other press outlets checking nyt sources, the misleading information woulda' stayed unchanged for one may only guess how long.

so yeah, nyt opinion piece makes an omission o' highly relevant info regarding a book 'bout kavanaugh. the book itself is hundreds o' pages long and details just how sloppy were the investigation o' numerous claims regarding J. Kavanaugh's behaviours. the event which is toughstone for the current media hurricane is addressed complete and brief in less than a full page o' the book in question. however, thanks to the slipshod editorial actions at the nyt, folks won't be talking 'bout how the fbi were seeming falling all over themselves trying to not investigate. instead, we got the short-attention span folks who is now gonna dismiss entire book 'cause nyt editor in an opinion piece were an arse jack. 

oh, and again, the misinformation were corrected in less than 24 hours.

compare

https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/17/politics/fact-check-trump-makes-at-least-26-false-claims-at-new-mexico-rally/index.html

how many wh corrections so far?

so yeah, thank god for press. the press caught nyt blunder and they has been mercilessly going after the times and their recent series o' opinion piece blunders. weren't some kinda backpage retraction nobody ever hears 'bout. the retraction has been at least as big a story as were the original opinion piece fallout.

sad part is the book findings is gonna be largely dismissed 'cause o' the fail o' a single deputy editor. once again, the enemy of the people and fake news is gonna be the real story for the fox news crowd. mistake by the editor were the best thing that coulda' happened for kavanaugh 'cause now folks got what they believe is a legit reason to ignore the findings o' a book they didn't wanna read and woulda' need work hard to pretend didn't exist. 

HA! Good Fun!

[Skarpen]

Yeah. It's a shame that the book will be dismissed, because it details how leftists wanted to destroy Kavanaugh for political reasons. For example how they blackmailed Leland Keyser trying to force her to confirm Blasey Ford false testimony. Gruesome stuff.

[Gromnir]

blunt instrument as usual. but yeah, book does treat fair. ford testimony weren't necessarily false 'cause keyser don't recall, but is true keyser don't recall as does ford and keyser did get threats. 

'course ford and ramirez and folks even suspected o' possible testifying 'bout kavanaugh got threats. if is blackmail and threats which somehow prove truth o' a statement, then kavanaugh is surely damned by such. would be unfair to make such a silly assumption, no?

there were folks on left and on right who weren't particular interested in truth. some such persons seem to be active today. again, fbi believed ramirez to be credible, but her claims were dismissed w/o any real investigation. had a list o' 25 people willing to corroborate ramirez story and fbi spoke to none of them?

investigation o' claims should not have been left up to reporters after the fact. Justice is lifetime appointment and is not elected. as such, as uncomfortable as a real investigation woulda' been, am not seeing a valid excuse for being dismissive o' otherwise initial credible complaints.  unfortunate, folks will, just as with the hearings, take away from book whatever they want to w/o recognizing the real fail.

perhaps after real investigation, there still wouldn't be certainty as to whose recollections were true. then again, perhaps, unlike mueller report, investigation exonerates accused. won't know now 'cause no investigation happened. 

did kavanaugh deserve to have name dragged through mud if the accusations were false? don't care. again, this is Justice to the Supreme Court of the United States. not elected. lifetime. can sympathize with kavanaugh if he were false accused, but given the nature o' the office o' Justice, due diligence were required to make certain kavanaugh were competent, qualified and worthy o' the office. didn't happen 'cause some blunt folks didn't care 'bout truth. and yeah, such obtuse folks who had already made up mind and were only looking for evidence to support their conclusions rather than being interested in truth were gonna be found attacking kavanaugh as well as supporting. 

bad leftists doesn't make accusations less true and it sure doesn't mean investigation were unnecessary. missing point as usual.

HA! Good Fun!

ps has been noted many times by us how left and right don't have much value insofar as Justices is concerned. what is political left and right only has ill-fit overlap with what folks think o' as liberal and conservative for Court. am personal not concerned with left and right silliness insofar as Court is concerned. competence and character is what matters. we supported Gorsuch we woulda' supported merrick.  Scalia actual recommended Ginsburg for the Court and he were ecstatic, as were Gromnir, by appointment o' Kagan. 

am offended by kavanaugh presence on the Court and has nothing to do with left or right for us. can blunt say same?

[Skarpen]

36 minutes ago, Gromnir said:

bad leftists doesn't make accusations less true and it sure doesn't mean investigation were unnecessary. missing point as usual.

 you accusing someone of missing the point is even more funny than Lewandowski hearing.

No, no one is saying that being leftist make accusation less true. It's, wait for it, L-Y-I-N-G that makes accusation less true and less believable. 

And again with false equivalencies. My God, comparing a random phone call with threats to people holding real political power making threats to your face is just sad.

[Malcador]

Something amusing about Trump appointing a chief hostage negotiator as his new NSA.

Edited September 18, 2019 by Malcador

[Gromnir]

1 hour ago, Skarpen said:

 you accusing someone of missing the point is even more funny than Lewandowski hearing.

No, no one is saying that being leftist make accusation less true. It's, wait for it, L-Y-I-N-G that makes accusation less true and less believable. 

And again with false equivalencies. My God, comparing a random phone call with threats to people holding real political power making threats to your face is just sad.

again, missing the point. lack o' real investigations means we never know truth. keyser and ford could both be telling truth as they recall, but w/o investigation we are stuck with competing recollections o' decades old events. could both be lying? sure. you bring up such stuff is MORE reason for investigation and not less. duh.

*zoom*

not surprised point is missed.

keyser threats, 'ccording to keyser family, were rather vague and amorphous. "behind-the-scene" "pressure." your assumptions 'bout the nature o' threats and political power leveraged is based on what? conspiracy talk show hosts? conjecture? not being dismissive o' threats, cause such stuff shoulda' been INVESTIGATED. no doubt the threats were, at the least, troubling. 'course you can't possible count monica mclean as a person with political power, or is that something you read at breitbart? a friend o' ford and keyser who vague pressured keyser, which mclean denies (so who is lying?) is maybe not gonna be convincing as the kinda pressure you suggest.   

more than a few o' the threats to kavanaugh witnesses were quite personal and not just phone calls or radio shows or Congressmen making thin-veiled threats 'bout witnesses who were not truthful. etc. violence and death threats.

and again with the leftist bit. undermines your concerns. conflicting recollections in a decades old situation is common. if everybody had exact same story and all details lined up same, then Gromnir would be concerned 'bout lying.

ford, btw, passed a polygraph. her psychology background somehow makes her an expert on beating polygraphs? *chuckle* not like tv or movies, polygraphs is a very good device for testing honesty, just not so good for testing truth. reason somebody fails can be myriad and may not be 'cause o' deceit 'bout specific questioned event. similar, a person may be telling truth but still be wrong. regardless, ford passing a polygraph is objective and is a more reliable test o' ford's honesty than is gonna be any source blunt folks attempt to imagine. 

but an ex-boyfriend o' ford's s'posed heard her coaching somebody regarding how to pass a polygraph...

*groan*

all the more reason to do real investigations. every conspiracy-fueled bit o' nonsense you raise, intermixed with a few real facts, does no more than fuel the argument that a real investigation were warranted, but you don't see it... can't see it.

HA! Good Fun!

ps @Malcador

am suspecting much o' the executive branch feels like they is being held hostage, so perhaps is an ideal selection. 

 

Edited September 18, 2019 by Gromnir

[Maedhros]

Corey Lewandowski: The Mueller report was very clear. There was no collusion… no obstruction.

Alisyn Camerota: That's not what the Mueller report said.

Corey: It absolutely says that.

Alisyn: Did you read the Mueller report?

Corey: No, I never did.

[ktchong]

 

 

Edited September 18, 2019 by ktchong

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

18 minutes ago, ktchong said:

 

 

Catholic Schools are a trip.

[Gromnir]

1 hour ago, KaineParker said:

Catholic Schools are a trip.

only listened to a minute 'fore losing interest. kept saying state school. somewhere later in the video is name o' the school provided? state school would necessarily preclude catholic here in the states.

as an aside, we had a professor ask a similar question in a lower division psych class at Cal. am doubting our experience were unique given how a few o' the big names in sex has suggested variations on the theme that the only unnatural sex act is not having sex.  challenge such a position by using a widely is known and universal despised proclivity doesn't surprise us.

regardless, if somebody thinks the question is new or representative o' some kinda cultural shift, then we will disabuse; advantage o' being old. can say with certainty that the pedophillia as an orientation as 'posed to disease were a topic o' discussion in university (state university) fumbduck psych classes as far back as the late 80s. 

HA! Good Fun!

 

Edited September 19, 2019 by Gromnir

[Gromnir]

mentioned earlier that a whistleblower situation were getting far less attention than it deserved. folks is starting to take notice.

Trump’s communications with foreign leader are part of whistleblower complaint that spurred standoff between spy chief and Congress, former officials say

is similar front headline stories at cnn, msnbc, wall street journal and everywhere o' note... save fox. at fox the headlines is 'bout a homeless man biting a shopkeeper, comey done-bad, grizzly bear attack, and a restaurant in baltimore being targeted for its "racist" dress code which prohibits baggy attire. couple other stories.

HA! Good Fun!