@TakisMegas: Looking back at the comment for the third time, I see that @smeagolheart did not say Joan Rivers was a racist; he blamed the transgender theory on a broad group of people whose identity he never specified. Rivers might have started it, but that doesn't mean one would place blame on her exclusively; others propagated the theory.
Also, @smeagolheart did not use the word "Nazi," much less accuse anyone of being a member of the party. Asking him to show "proof that she was a racist and also part of the Nazi right wing party" is not fair--you can't demand that somebody prove a claim they never made. Smeagolheart did not say Joan Rivers was a Nazi.
Aside from your post asking him to prove a claim he never made, the word "Nazi" hasn't shown up in this thread at all for the past 12 days, and the last time it did, it was me talking about North Korea.
It worries me that this is being taken as some sort of personal slight. I'm just trying to point out a basic principle already explained on the first page:
Rule 1: No Flaming, Personal Attacks, or Disrespectful Behavior
...Ascribing absurd or sinister views to another forumite is against the rules.
Rule 2: No Trolling, Baiting, or Needling
...No one is required to answer hostile questions or demands.
Rule 5: Keep Things Substantive
This thread is not here for partisan invective or semantic quibbles, nor is it here for forumites to "win" arguments or "defeat" an opposing viewpoint...
...Opinion and personal experience are welcome, but statements that are presented as "fact" should be accompanied by a source.
If somebody is making a certain claim, it's perfectly reasonable to ask them to provide proof for that claim. If somebody is not making that claim, it's not fair to demand proof for something they did not say.
You're only obligated to defend the views you yourself hold.
I have your back @smeagolheart. You've been more than fair in my view. I like hearing from you @TakisMegas but you need a thicker skin if you want to debate politics. This is a pretty mellow forum from what I've seen out there on the WWW. Seriously, don't take things personally and you'll be fine here.
Joan Rivers wasn't necessarily a racist. Most people don't know this (based on her red carpet work and talk show), but she was a stand-up comedian first and foremost, and a VERY blue one at that. She was equal opportunity, in that she would lay into and spit venomous acid at pretty much anyone within striking distance, including her own audience members. She would frequently make jokes about her own husband's suicide. Point being, there was never a time I saw her in that context where she wasn't simply pushing the line just to see it pushed. She was basically the high priestess of deliberately offensive stand-up comedy. It's sort of impossible to take anything she said seriously or literally, since she was almost always in-character, so to speak. If you watched or attended a Joan Rivers show, if you didn't say "did she really just say that??" to yourself at least half a dozen times, you didn't get what you paid for.
The jury is deliberating in the first trail of Paul Manafort. They passed a note to the judge asking him to define reasonable doubt. I am uncertain what the holdup is, it seems like Muellers team had plenty of evidence and witness testimony. Possible it didn't exactly fit the charges. He might get off.
Manafort presented no defense. That tactic worked for the Bundys, they got off despite obviously breaking the law. Maybe the "no defense" defense somehow convinces the jury to imagine their own defense in their heads to pit against the prosecutors which might be better than whatever the defense could have said anyway.
----
Meanwhile, Trump has been saying what a swell wonderful nice man Manafort is - either prepping the pardon pen or trying to influence the deliberating jury. Maybe both.
Seems like something he should not be doing but he is apparently free to interfere in justice if he just calls it "fighting back". And after revoking Brennan's clearance due to the Russia investigation he has his sights on several other law enforcement officials to revoke clearances from including a currently employee. Whatever, Trump's going to Trump and the only people who will stand up to him are Democrats.
----------
Finally, Mueller is recommending six months in jail to the judge for Papadopoulos because when he lied to investigators a critical witness left the country.
The judge is saying he and the jury have been receiving death threats. There is no specification about who is sending these threats or what they entail, but if this is the case, I would have to ask why this jury hasn't been sequestered from the start. In addition to the fact that the President of the United States is opining on the case on a daily basis. This isn't all that dissimilar to how John Gotti got off the first two times.
The jury haven’t been receiving threats, only the judge, but it wouldn’t surprise him if after the trial and their names are released, they’d start getting threats from the side that lost. It wouldn’t surprise me if both sides have been threatening the judge. Regardless of the verdict, I think the jurors would get some heat if their names were made public.
People, including the media, have to realize that Trump isn’t on trial here and regardless of the outcome it will have no impact on the rest of the investigation.
Also the jury should be cut off from all media, including twitter, so that evidence not presented to them won’t hinder their verdict.
Even if he is a ‘nice guy,’ that only comes into play during sentencing but regardless of the verdict it won’t get that far as Trump will issue a pardon once the verdict is read just like he did to Arpaio.
It is sounding like a juror or two are using ignorance as an excuse if ‘reasonable doubt’ is being asked to be defined. We’ll see though.
People, including the media, have to realize that Trump isn’t on trial here and regardless of the outcome it will have no impact on the rest of the investigation.
People, including the media, have to realize that Trump isn’t on trial here and regardless of the outcome it will have no impact on the rest of the investigation.
Re: Trump's not on trial....
This is one of two trials involving Manafort. The other is scheduled for September.
That one is allegedly bigger and involves Trump more, with witness tampering, and making false claims as well as money laundering.
And Trump will say anything. Amusing how he hasn’t made a peep about Papadopoulos’ sentencing hearing. Mueller is asking for 6 months in jail there as well as a fine.
I have mentioned before how Republicans (and ONLY Republicans) are flat-out just trying to eliminate African-American votes in any way possible. The Georgia race for Governor is not only going to be close, but is one of the most stark choices in the country. And it seems the fix may already be in:
On Thursday evening, the election board of Randolph County, Georgia, met to discuss a startling proposal to eliminate three-fourths of the county’s polling places months before the November election. A rural, impoverished, and predominantly black county, Randolph has just nine polling locations, all of which were open during the May primaries and July runoffs. The election board may soon shut down seven of them, including one in a precinct where about 97 percent of voters are black. Its plan would compel residents, many of whom have no car or access to public transit, to travel as much as 30 miles round trip to reach the nearest polling place.
That is only the first paragraph of a much larger article. I'd like to see anyone reasonably defend or justify this behavior:
Shutting down polling places is one of the most indefensible practices I can think of. It disturbs me that it's become fashionable among GOP politicians--and yes, it is usually done against minority and Democrat-majority areas.
When you as a policymaker flat-out try to discourage people from voting, you've pretty much given up on the most basic premise of democracy.
Shutting down polling places is one of the most indefensible practices I can think of. It disturbs me that it's become fashionable among GOP politicians--and yes, it is usually done against minority and Democrat-majority areas.
When you as a policymaker flat-out try to discourage people from voting, you've pretty much given up on the most basic premise of democracy.
This is one area of public policy where I can't think of a single equivalency. To do so, you would have to find SOME example somewhere of a Democratic controlled Board of Elections who was actively trying to shut down polling places in a district that would demographically swing towards Republicans. It would be like if my rural hometown of 500 (almost 100% white, and at least 67% conservative based on the last election) had their polling place at City Hall shut down and everyone had to drive 20 miles to the nearest nominally large population center to vote. I doubt anyone can find even one example of this happening.
The thing is, as stated in the article, some Republican law makers will just flat-out ADMIT that they don't want large numbers of African-Americans to vote. I remember similar quotes from top officials in Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Wisconsin in 2016. I mean, they aren't even trying to hide it. They are flaunting it.
A group of 11 kids were allegedly being starved, neglected, and trained to commit school shootings, in one of the more horrifying stories i've read in recent memory.
A group of 11 kids were allegedly being starved, neglected, and trained to commit school shootings, in one of the more horrifying stories i've read in recent memory.
Nuts. You have to wonder how a person could end up that way.
What religious beliefs can take over a person's mind to make it seem like a swell idea to starve, neglect and indoctrinate children.
I suspect it may not be so far removed from the anti-vaxxers. By that I mean a the situation of a person being totally convinced of something that outsiders recognize as harmful to their kids. This guy was that inclination to ignore consensus times seven.
@smeagolheart While religious beliefs may certainly be the culpit, they may not necessarily. Political or even a personal ideaology are just as effective.
@smeagolheart While religious beliefs may certainly be the culpit, they may not necessarily. Political or even a personal ideaology are just as effective.
Yeah man, I mean such ironclad faith in something (doesn't have to be called religion). When that something, that faith, is in something harmful well that's awful and can lead to some disturbing, harmful, even fatal consequences.
I'm sure this guy felt that he was doing the right thing.
"And when you tell me that he should testify because he's going to tell the truth and he shouldn't worry, well that's so silly because that's somebody's version of the truth, not the truth," Giuliani said.
"Truth is truth," anchor Chuck Todd responded.
"No it isn't," Giuliani said. "Truth isn't truth."
"Mr. Mayor ... this is going to become a bad meme."
"And when you tell me that he should testify because he's going to tell the truth and he shouldn't worry, well that's so silly because that's somebody's version of the truth, not the truth," Giuliani said.
"Truth is truth," anchor Chuck Todd responded.
"No it isn't," Giuliani said. "Truth isn't truth."
"Mr. Mayor ... this is going to become a bad meme."
@smeagolheart While religious beliefs may certainly be the culpit, they may not necessarily. Political or even a personal ideaology are just as effective.
Yeah man, I mean such ironclad faith in something (doesn't have to be called religion). When that something, that faith, is in something harmful well that's awful and can lead to some disturbing, harmful, even fatal consequences.
I'm sure this guy felt that he was doing the right thing.
For sure. Nobody thinks of themselves as evil, or that they do evil things.
"No it isn't," Giuliani said. "Truth isn't truth."
Strangely enough, both men are correct in their statements.
Some truth is true because it can be repeatedly and independently verified--in Euclidean geometry the shortest distance between two points is a straight line, the angle between the hydrogen and oxygen atoms in water is 109.5 degrees/.6083π radians, smoking is bad for your health, etc--while other "truth" is actually just "widely-held and generally-believed-to-be-true information"--being vegetarian is more healthy than other meal choices, The Mafia killed JFK, and any of a number of political positions you may choose at random. Despite having facts, figures, statistics, and research which supports that political position as being "true" there are often just as many facts, figures, statistics, and research which supports that political position as being "false".
Now...they were actually talking about Manafort's trial and in a courtroom there are two groups of ideas: "things which are true" and "things which are provable" and those two groups are not equal to one another. The only things which matter in that situation are the ones in the "that which is provable" group.
"No it isn't," Giuliani said. "Truth isn't truth."
Strangely enough, both men are correct in their statements.
Some truth is true because it can be repeatedly and independently verified--in Euclidean geometry the shortest distance between two points is a straight line, -while other "truth" is actually just "widely-held and generally-believed-to-be-true information"--being vegetarian is more healthy than other meal choices, .
Both individuals might be correct in their statement? Like anything "might"?
But "strangely enough" - trying to juxtapose a widely held geometric (Newtonian) theorem with a lifestyle statement is not equal in authority, or validation, or substance.
There's definitely only one truth--it's just that no one person is qualified to decide what exactly is true. The "truth" isn't necessarily something we know for certain. "Truth isn't truth" essentially means "We can't state definitively that we know the truth."
Still... coming from Rudy Giuliani (who not long ago went from describing Michael Cohen as a good, honest man to a "known liar" in less than a week), the phrase "Truth isn't truth" doesn't sound the same as if it came from somebody with a better reputation. It does sound more like a bad meme than an observation on epistemology (the study of knowledge).
I don't agree with that - there are lots of shades of truth if we're talking about politics, not mathematics. Different things can also be true or not depending on the situation and interpretation, e.g. - a simple factual statement like "incomes have increased over the last 10 years" could be true (in cash terms), but false (in real terms). - things get more complex when political beliefs are factored in. So a statement like "Trump is a popular president" can be seen as both true (large, loyal base) and false (majority don't support). - there's a difference between objective and subjective truth. Consider something like a bank robbery gone wrong. In the chaos a customer is shot by one of a team of robbers and the police interview witnesses to discover who shot them - different witnesses are convinced different robbers did that. While there is only a single objective truth in the described situation, there can be multiple subjective truths which are also important. - you also have different interpretations of events, which are all objectively true. In the bank robbery situation, when asked "who shot their gun", one witness may only remember one robber shooting and another witness another robber - both can be correct.
Comments
I am not breaking any rules.
Why is it that when I ask for proof of something in this forum it's a violation? I get asked for proof in this Thread, don't complain at all.
Also, @smeagolheart did not use the word "Nazi," much less accuse anyone of being a member of the party. Asking him to show "proof that she was a racist and also part of the Nazi right wing party" is not fair--you can't demand that somebody prove a claim they never made. Smeagolheart did not say Joan Rivers was a Nazi.
Aside from your post asking him to prove a claim he never made, the word "Nazi" hasn't shown up in this thread at all for the past 12 days, and the last time it did, it was me talking about North Korea.
K, I see where this is going.
Have a good life guys. I'm bowing out.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If somebody is making a certain claim, it's perfectly reasonable to ask them to provide proof for that claim. If somebody is not making that claim, it's not fair to demand proof for something they did not say.
You're only obligated to defend the views you yourself hold.
Manafort presented no defense. That tactic worked for the Bundys, they got off despite obviously breaking the law. Maybe the "no defense" defense somehow convinces the jury to imagine their own defense in their heads to pit against the prosecutors which might be better than whatever the defense could have said anyway.
----
Meanwhile, Trump has been saying what a swell wonderful nice man Manafort is - either prepping the pardon pen or trying to influence the deliberating jury. Maybe both.
Seems like something he should not be doing but he is apparently free to interfere in justice if he just calls it "fighting back". And after revoking Brennan's clearance due to the Russia investigation he has his sights on several other law enforcement officials to revoke clearances from including a currently employee. Whatever, Trump's going to Trump and the only people who will stand up to him are Democrats.
----------
Finally, Mueller is recommending six months in jail to the judge for Papadopoulos because when he lied to investigators a critical witness left the country.
The jury haven’t been receiving threats, only the judge, but it wouldn’t surprise him if after the trial and their names are released, they’d start getting threats from the side that lost. It wouldn’t surprise me if both sides have been threatening the judge. Regardless of the verdict, I think the jurors would get some heat if their names were made public.
People, including the media, have to realize that Trump isn’t on trial here and regardless of the outcome it will have no impact on the rest of the investigation.
Also the jury should be cut off from all media, including twitter, so that evidence not presented to them won’t hinder their verdict.
Even if he is a ‘nice guy,’ that only comes into play during sentencing but regardless of the verdict it won’t get that far as Trump will issue a pardon once the verdict is read just like he did to Arpaio.
It is sounding like a juror or two are using ignorance as an excuse if ‘reasonable doubt’ is being asked to be defined. We’ll see though.
That one is allegedly bigger and involves Trump more, with witness tampering, and making false claims as well as money laundering.
And Trump will say anything. Amusing how he hasn’t made a peep about Papadopoulos’ sentencing hearing. Mueller is asking for 6 months in jail there as well as a fine.
On Thursday evening, the election board of Randolph County, Georgia, met to discuss a startling proposal to eliminate three-fourths of the county’s polling places months before the November election. A rural, impoverished, and predominantly black county, Randolph has just nine polling locations, all of which were open during the May primaries and July runoffs. The election board may soon shut down seven of them, including one in a precinct where about 97 percent of voters are black. Its plan would compel residents, many of whom have no car or access to public transit, to travel as much as 30 miles round trip to reach the nearest polling place.
That is only the first paragraph of a much larger article. I'd like to see anyone reasonably defend or justify this behavior:
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2018/08/georgia-voter-suppression-brian-kemps-bid-for-governor-depends-on-erasing-the-black-vote-its-working.html
When you as a policymaker flat-out try to discourage people from voting, you've pretty much given up on the most basic premise of democracy.
The thing is, as stated in the article, some Republican law makers will just flat-out ADMIT that they don't want large numbers of African-Americans to vote. I remember similar quotes from top officials in Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Wisconsin in 2016. I mean, they aren't even trying to hide it. They are flaunting it.
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/08/man-training-kids-for-school-shooting-court-documents-say.html
What religious beliefs can take over a person's mind to make it seem like a swell idea to starve, neglect and indoctrinate children.
I suspect it may not be so far removed from the anti-vaxxers. By that I mean a the situation of a person being totally convinced of something that outsiders recognize as harmful to their kids. This guy was that inclination to ignore consensus times seven.
I'm sure this guy felt that he was doing the right thing.
"Truth is truth," anchor Chuck Todd responded.
"No it isn't," Giuliani said. "Truth isn't truth."
"Mr. Mayor ... this is going to become a bad meme."
Where's that other bad meme, facepalm Picard.
https://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/video/full-giuliani-trump-tower-meeting-for-getting-information-about-clinton-1302112323508?v=railb
Some truth is true because it can be repeatedly and independently verified--in Euclidean geometry the shortest distance between two points is a straight line, the angle between the hydrogen and oxygen atoms in water is 109.5 degrees/.6083π radians, smoking is bad for your health, etc--while other "truth" is actually just "widely-held and generally-believed-to-be-true information"--being vegetarian is more healthy than other meal choices, The Mafia killed JFK, and any of a number of political positions you may choose at random. Despite having facts, figures, statistics, and research which supports that political position as being "true" there are often just as many facts, figures, statistics, and research which supports that political position as being "false".
Now...they were actually talking about Manafort's trial and in a courtroom there are two groups of ideas: "things which are true" and "things which are provable" and those two groups are not equal to one another. The only things which matter in that situation are the ones in the "that which is provable" group.
But "strangely enough" - trying to juxtapose a widely held geometric (Newtonian) theorem with a lifestyle statement is not equal in authority, or validation, or substance.
Do tell: why do you pretend it to be so?
Still... coming from Rudy Giuliani (who not long ago went from describing Michael Cohen as a good, honest man to a "known liar" in less than a week), the phrase "Truth isn't truth" doesn't sound the same as if it came from somebody with a better reputation. It does sound more like a bad meme than an observation on epistemology (the study of knowledge).
https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-45253993
Pretty funny. I'm not even surprised.
- a simple factual statement like "incomes have increased over the last 10 years" could be true (in cash terms), but false (in real terms).
- things get more complex when political beliefs are factored in. So a statement like "Trump is a popular president" can be seen as both true (large, loyal base) and false (majority don't support).
- there's a difference between objective and subjective truth. Consider something like a bank robbery gone wrong. In the chaos a customer is shot by one of a team of robbers and the police interview witnesses to discover who shot them - different witnesses are convinced different robbers did that. While there is only a single objective truth in the described situation, there can be multiple subjective truths which are also important.
- you also have different interpretations of events, which are all objectively true. In the bank robbery situation, when asked "who shot their gun", one witness may only remember one robber shooting and another witness another robber - both can be correct.